Prove the Earth is round
- Thread starter DangerousBeliefs
- Start date
-
- Tags
- prove
Joshua Korosi,
Nice photo. I could see the distortion. One bridge is concave & other is convax. Similarily the hill & other picture. But these can be Man made or local slopes.
It is unnecessary to continue these discussions in this topic by me as neither you can prove by physical viewing of earth as round from all dimentions to me & to more than 50% population which can be the real proof for me NOR I will accept the calculations,pictures or observations by few people unless you respect & accept the observations & experiances by many.
Most of the things can be moulded in any manner if backed by some vested interests.
Nice photo. I could see the distortion. One bridge is concave & other is convax. Similarily the hill & other picture. But these can be Man made or local slopes.
It is unnecessary to continue these discussions in this topic by me as neither you can prove by physical viewing of earth as round from all dimentions to me & to more than 50% population which can be the real proof for me NOR I will accept the calculations,pictures or observations by few people unless you respect & accept the observations & experiances by many.
Most of the things can be moulded in any manner if backed by some vested interests.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Yup, and those who are making large amounts of money by selling shaken-up water will always find some way to "mould" the evidence so that they can go right on selling that shaken-up water.Kumar said:Most of the things can be moulded in any manner if backed by some vested interests.
Rolfe.
Yes, Kumar - it's all made up to fool the great public!Kumar said:Joshua Korosi,
Nice photo. I could see the distortion. One bridge is concave & other is convax. Similarily the hill & other picture. But these can be Man made or local slopes.
It is unnecessary to continue these discussions in this topic by me as neither you can prove by physical viewing of earth as round from all dimentions to me & to more than 50% population which can be the real proof for me NOR I will accept the calculations,pictures or observations by few people unless you respect & accept the observations & experiances by many.
Most of the things can be moulded in any manner if backed by some vested interests.
Hans,
But the question is: " Can we prove to the ..... that homeopathy works?
The awnser is : " No."
We were always having just some fun.
Sorry, I could not mention the five words being we are bit sober & spritual.
I still like;
Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist. Phillip K Dick It means, if anything is existing since long then it is reality.
However, I lastly mentions here that:
" Do respect & believe others if you want to be believed & respected, because 'God' is in everyone "
Kumar said:
I disagree, you were attempting to demonstrate that because we weren't willing to accept you rag-tag collection of anecdotes and half-baked "scientific" studies for homeopathy, we were unwilling ever to do so.
If you provide good quality evidence , I sure the majority of people here will believe it. This issue is that the quality of evidence has been universally poor.
Rolfe
Adult human female
This is what Kumar is up against.
It's like Randi's goat - if he says, "I have a goat in my garden", and shows you a photo of a goat in a garden, you'd have no real reason to disbelieve him, and would probably not send a private eye down to his house to check he wasn't lying. However, if he says "I have a unicorn in my garden", and produces a photo of a unicorn in the garden, you'd put "faked photograph" a lot higher up the probability list than "real unicorn".
This is why Sir James Maddox sent Stewart and Randi to Benveniste's lab. Not that it was impossible that other contributors to Nature might have faked or fudged their results, but that because Benveniste's results were "miracle" then "fakery" was a more likely explanation than "real results".
We don't usually subject everything that looks like "good quality evidence" for a therapeutic claim to such detailed scrutiny, but we will always subject homoeopathic claims to such scrutiny, because homoeopathic claims are in the "miracle" class. Kumar thinks that this is unfair.
Rolfe.
Kumar is correct,
Homeopath(et)ic "remedies" are usually very, very safe indeed unless the water used to carry out the dilution has some unfortunate impurities.
Ineffective but save (rather like the Middlesbrough Football Club Strikers
)
Homeopath(et)ic "remedies" are usually very, very safe indeed unless the water used to carry out the dilution has some unfortunate impurities.
Ineffective but save (rather like the Middlesbrough Football Club Strikers
)Nothing is better than........??
Full report & above quote from: HERE
RxList Side Effects and Drug Interactions Page Listing
A-Z Alphabetical by Brand Name / Generic
READ HERE
FDA gov Adverse Reactions:
Animal Drugs
Blood Products
Devices
Dietary Supplements/Specials Nutritionals
Drugs
Vaccines
Advisory
ACCESS HERE
Full report & above quote from: HERE
RxList Side Effects and Drug Interactions Page Listing
A-Z Alphabetical by Brand Name / Generic
READ HERE
FDA gov Adverse Reactions:
Animal Drugs
Blood Products
Devices
Dietary Supplements/Specials Nutritionals
Drugs
Vaccines
Advisory
ACCESS HERE
The Don,The Don said:Kumar is correct,
Homeopath(et)ic "remedies" are usually very, very safe indeed unless the water used to carry out the dilution has some unfortunate impurities.
Ineffective but save (rather like the Middlesbrough Football Club Strikers
HOMŒOPATHY EXPLAINED
By John Henry Clarke, M. D.
Presented by Médi-T
Homœopathy, Allopathy & Enantiopathy :
Three Ways of Utilising Drug Action.
It is for you
Study here
Greatest Surprise: Google search for ' treated person allopathy' given 2150 results in 0.43 seconds?? SEE HERE
Kumar said:
Apologies for my loseness of terminology:
- Very high dilution Homopathic "remedies" are perfectly harmless though ineffective
- Other Homopathic "remedies" are potentially dangerous
Is that better ?
Even Greater than greatest Suprise : Google search for "Loch Ness Monster" Turned up 62,200 results in 0.13 seconds. Just because the Internet is full of it, doesn't mean that the Internet isn't "full of it"
WHAT UTTER RUBBISH! It means no such thing at all, Kumar! Your "interpretation" of such a straight forward and neatly stated sentence shows you have no understanding of what you are pretending to talk about. If you can't even understand such a plain sentence, how are we expected to believe anything you tell us about medicine and homeopathy?
I suppose it could be merely the language difference, but given the evidence you present, I'm now far more certain it is plain obstinate obduracy and an impenetrable cranium on your part, Kumar.
Go look these words up...
Put it this way ANYTHING which has an effect on the human body is potentially dangerous.
The purpose of running drugs through trials and so forth is to see whether the positive qualities of drugs outwiegh any side-effects. Drug trials also tend to identify who are at high risk from side effects.
Cases where medicines are withdrawn can fall into a number of categories:
- Cases where the goalposts have moved and previously acceptable side effects are unacceptable
- Cases where the initial study was insufficiently complete. To be truly thorough you'd have to give everyone in the world a drug to identify all possible side effects - not really possible
- Cases where a drug is being used for a reason, or within a group not covered by the drug trial
- (very rare) Cases where the results of the study were falsified
Compare this to homeopathy where patients are treated with materials that are either completely benign (i.e. have no effect) or are being treated with various amounts of untested substances.
People who administer homeopathic remedies are either quacks (if their action doesn't result in the death or their patient) or murderers (if it does).
I will revise my opinion when:
- Homeopathic medecines are subject to the same testing regimen as "proper" medicines
- Homeopathy is shown to work in an well conducted trial which is subject to peer review
The purpose of running drugs through trials and so forth is to see whether the positive qualities of drugs outwiegh any side-effects. Drug trials also tend to identify who are at high risk from side effects.
Cases where medicines are withdrawn can fall into a number of categories:
- Cases where the goalposts have moved and previously acceptable side effects are unacceptable
- Cases where the initial study was insufficiently complete. To be truly thorough you'd have to give everyone in the world a drug to identify all possible side effects - not really possible
- Cases where a drug is being used for a reason, or within a group not covered by the drug trial
- (very rare) Cases where the results of the study were falsified
Compare this to homeopathy where patients are treated with materials that are either completely benign (i.e. have no effect) or are being treated with various amounts of untested substances.
People who administer homeopathic remedies are either quacks (if their action doesn't result in the death or their patient) or murderers (if it does).
I will revise my opinion when:
- Homeopathic medecines are subject to the same testing regimen as "proper" medicines
- Homeopathy is shown to work in an well conducted trial which is subject to peer review
Rolfe
Adult human female
Exactly. It's relatively easy to avoid undesirable effects when the preparation you're using doesn't have any effect of any description.The Don said:
I saw a very good analogy in a thread on one of the boards Kumar would rather we didn't go lurking in. There is a homoeopath there who consistently responds to any criticism of homoeopathy by banging on about the thalidomide affair (from more than 40 years ago). One poster replied pointing out that, obviously, safety and efficacy are two different properties. He then introduced the analogy of cutting down a tree. A chain saw is an effective instrument for that job. However, a chain saw is also dangerous. A feather is not dangerous (unless you happen to be allergic to feathers, I suppose). However, a feather is not effective for cutting down a tree. The homoeopaths are in the business of trying to cut down trees with feathers. When we point out that feathers aren't very good at this, the response "but chain saws are dangerous" seems to be the best they can do.
Of course it's not that simple. Trees don't often fall down of their own accord. If you had enough patience, of course you could claim that the feather was effective, because in the end, I suppose, the tree would eventually fall down. But you'd need a pretty extended life span to make that one fly. However, the self-repair mechanisms of the mammalian body are quite prodigious. And even chronic diseases often wax and wane in a most confusing manner. It's astoundingly easy to convince yourself that an ineffective intervention has been effective, and homoeopathy has no monopoly on that.
This is why controlled trials are designed for real medicines, so that we can as far as possible eliminate the effects of natural recovery, natural fluctuation in the course of the condition, and clinician wishful thinking, on our assessment of the benefits. However, homoeopathy rejects the controlled trial (except for the few small studies which managed to fluke a positive result, of course!). Argumentum ad populum (surely so many people can't be mistaken) is simply rubbish in this context. Millions of people believe in astrology, too! (I was trying to find the homoeopathy thread in which the possibility of using astrological signs to divine the correct homoeopathic remedy was apparently being seriously discussed, but I can't trace it among the heap of woo-woo - as I said, so much fruitcake, so little time! Anyone who knows where it is, please link.)
And it's not that simple in another way too. Homoeopaths believe in something called "homoeopathic aggravation", or "Hering's Law", in which the remedy may exacerbate the situation for a variable time before the "cure" sets in. The initial reason for this goes back to the early work of Hahnemann, when he often used real quantities of really poisonous substances. He then started diluting them out, and "discovered" that the adverse effects faded, while the "healing" effects remained. This is hardly surprising, as the adverse effects were real and the healing effects were delusional. However, the thing has perpetuated in homoeopathic theory, so that now when a patient deteriorates after the remedy is given, this is attributed to the remedy - sort of "the bad's coming out", as if a boil had burst.
Another explanation for an apparent adverse effect of a homoeopathic remedy is that the patient is exhibiting a "proving" of the remedy, something which would be experienced by members of a healthy proving group in the process of finding out which "like" this stuff might be thought to cure. A third excuse, for when the patient has deteriorated after discontinuing "allopathic" treatment to switch to homoeopathy, is that the antibiotic (or whatever) has simply suppressed the disease (which is bad), and the homoeopathy has now allowed the natural expression of the symptoms (which is good.
)If you trawl the homoeopathy discussion boards you can find plenty of examples of these (then of course when you want to link to them they've vanished and you get distracted by even newer and better woo-woo....). It's interesting that there's so much of it when unfiltered discussion of real cases is monitored, whereas if you just read the cases these people publish you see very little assumption of adverse effects.
Of course, if these were really effects of the magic water, it would be vitally important to carry out safety tests. In one of the threads I can't find, someone reported that her mother's skin condition had become very much worse indeed after a remedy, so that she was scratching her skin until it bled. This was either Hering's Law or a proving, I forget which. Some sceptic then remarked that if a homoeopathic remedy could cause reactions like that, any claim that this method is safe is a pack of lies.
The reason that no safety tests are required is of course that the deteriorations are either the normal course of the disease, or the consequence of discontinuing effective treatment to switch to homoeopathy. Even the "proving" symptoms can't be shown to exist in blind testing. The fact is that whatever you do, the patient will either improve, stay the same, or get worse. Homoeopathy has answers for every eventuality, it just doesn't like to dwell on its explanations for the "get worse" situations, as that might raise embarrassing questions in relation to safety. And of course none of the explanations involves the possibility that homoeopathy might not be effective.
Rolfe.