What is paranormal in Homeopathy

[wahrheit]

The yawn thing reminded me of the orginal idea of this thread. Well, after following closely all the homeopathy threads here, I stumbled across this gem, found in the very first post of this thread:

Dear Members,

*snip* (a lot of *snip*, actually)

I thank you to all of you of taking time and pain in reading my post.

I might suggest to Dr. MAS switching from homeopathy to the psychic field, he was spot on regarding his predicition of the pain thing. I had no idea it would be that painful back in April, when all this began.

 

[Mojo]

More than just interesting it is AMAZING, EARTHSHAKING, INCREDIBLE!

Here lies the basis from which all pseudo-skeptics will eventually have to admit that they were wrong.

Another paper is due to be published soon I just learned.

Hopefully they will show something similar using ultra-diluted sulphur, phospherous, zinc, gold, silver, etc........

The end is near.

I thought you were supposed to be banned by now.

 

[Jocce]

Here lies the basis from which all pseudo-skeptics will eventually have to admit that they were wrong.

The basis of what?
Wrong about what?

Please try to express yourself clearer. It's very hard to discuss when you just burp up superlatives.

The study shows a difference in glow curves. There is nothing in the study that explains why there's a difference and what physical property is expressed differently in peak 2. Jumping conclusions doesn't add to your case whatever it might be.

I also find it interesting that you conveniently select to not comment on any points about the study that are brought up. At least I read it, tried to understand it and elaborated on it. If you've done that. What does the study show to you? What does it prove?

 

[MRC_Hans]

More than just interesting it is AMAZING, EARTHSHAKING, INCREDIBLE!

Here lies the basis from which all pseudo-skeptics will eventually have to admit that they were wrong.

Another paper is due to be published soon I just learned.

Hopefully they will show something similar using ultra-diluted sulphur, phospherous, zinc, gold, silver, etc........

The end is near.

Since you are so well-informed, perhaps you could clear this up:

From the termoluminicense paper:

To that end we did prepare ourselves, courtesy of the BOIRON LABORATORIES,

Who prepared the samples? Did they do it in the lab or did Boiron do it? If they did it in the lab, then why the dedication to Boiron?

I notice that they only used ONE sample and ONE control. Hardly a scientific approach, if you ask me. Even a fleck of dust could totally mess up the results, in either direction.

Hans

 

[Jocce]

And, I might add, no blinding procedure.

 

[MRC_Hans]

That too. And the absolutely ridiculous remark about how they "just thought it could be interesting to try ultra-diluted solutions".

So these scientists were working with this advanced analysis tool, and someobdy said "hey let's just use the next week or two for something wholly absurd!", and the others said "YEAH, well never see the end of this grant if we only do serious work!"



Hans

 

[Olaf/QII]

The basis of what?
Wrong about what?

Please try to express yourself clearer. It's very hard to discuss when you just burp up superlatives.

The study shows a difference in glow curves. There is nothing in the study that explains why there's a difference and what physical property is expressed differently in peak 2. Jumping conclusions doesn't add to your case whatever it might be.

I also find it interesting that you conveniently select to not comment on any points about the study that are brought up. At least I read it, tried to understand it and elaborated on it. If you've done that. What does the study show to you? What does it prove?

yes, I have read it --thoroughly. i will be starting a topic on it soon.

one of the thjings i hope to accopmplish is to see if we can drum up some ideas among the people here to see if we can get replication and/or expand the study.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Olaf/QII:

yes, I have read it --thoroughly. i will be starting a topic on it soon.

one of the thjings i hope to accopmplish is to see if we can drum up some ideas among the people here to see if we can get replication and/or expand the study.

So then:

1. You still choose not to comment on Jocce's comments.

2. You now back off (without explicity stating so) from your claim that this is amazing, earthshaking, incredible.

3. You admit that the lack of replication is an issue.


I admit that your posts are at least intelligible, unlike most other homeopaths here.

But I caution you that smoothly spoken nonsense is still nonsense.

 

[Olaf/QII]

So then:

1. You still choose not to comment on Jocce's comments.

2. You now back off (without explicity stating so) from your claim that this is amazing, earthshaking, incredible.

3. You admit that the lack of replication is an issue.


I admit that your posts are at least intelligible, unlike most other homeopaths here.

But I caution you that smoothly spoken nonsense is still nonsense.

Believe me Garrett, I am going to go into this paper -- boy am I EVER going to go into it.

However, I do not want to spread myself to thin.

At the present time, the histamine/basophil study is being discussed in the Medical section.

My plan is to cover several of these papers (basophils), and then some of the other in vitro studies.

Patience, patience.

 

[Olaf/QII]

. At least I read it, tried to understand it and elaborated on it. If you've done that. What does the study show to you? What does it prove?

i studied it thoroughly a little while ago. I have even scoured the journals for confirmation.

In order to speak on it I need to pull it out again and thoroughly familiarize myself with it. My time is very limited so I can not do that just yet.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

i studied it thoroughly a little while ago. I have even scoured the journals for confirmation.

In order to speak on it I need to pull it out again and thoroughly familiarize myself with it. My time is very limited so I can not do that just yet.

Olaf/QII,

I read, but seldom post in homeopathy threads, but it seems to me that if a homeopathy supporter comes to a skeptic forum to discuss what they feel is a groundbreaking study, then one should be prepared to discuss it.

If you "studied it thoroughly a little while ago", it seems like you ought to be able to provide an answer to Jocce's questions, i.e., What does the study show to you? What does it prove?

When you say you will "pull it out again and familiarize" yourself with it, and that your time is limited, it sounds like the excuses I've seen from other homeopaths.

I'm sure Rolfe and Badly Shaved Monkey (for example) have busy schedules as well, but they take the time to make rather lenghty posts in defense of their positions. Can't you do the same?

Just my $.02

 

[Olaf/QII]

Olaf/QII,

I read, but seldom post in homeopathy threads, but it seems to me that if a homeopathy supporter comes to a skeptic forum to discuss what they feel is a groundbreaking study, then one should be prepared to discuss it.

It is relatively simple and straightforward of a study. The basophil/histamine studies are much more involved, and a lot more to sort through.

I want to keep my focus on basophils for now.

trust me I will go into detail on thermoluminescence. it is one of my favorite subjects. This is where the groundwork will be laid.

It excites me just thinking about it. Imagine that we can dilute a substance out of existance yet still be able to detect it --and they think it has something to do with hydrogen bonding.

what do you think?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

what do you think?

I'll keep watching the threads for now. I work with a few analytical chemists, however thermoluminescesce is not one of the techniques they routinely use. They are more FTIR, XRD, XRF, GC/MS, and ordinary wet chemistry types.

Maybe I'll learn something about thermoluminescence?

 

[Jocce]

i studied it thoroughly a little while ago. I have even scoured the journals for confirmation.

In order to speak on it I need to pull it out again and thoroughly familiarize myself with it. My time is very limited so I can not do that just yet.

So basically, the AMAZING, EARTHSHAKING, INCREDIBLE is just you guessing because you don't really remember what the paper said? Oh well, it's not that hard to understand or remember but by all means, take your time.

When you're done:

What is left when you cut through all the "probably due to", "much to our surprise", "remarkable" and "probably thanks to" and take into account that N=1 and no check on purity of samples is reported?

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is relatively simple and straightforward of a study. The basophil/histamine studies are much more involved, and a lot more to sort through.

It certainly is more simple.

I want to keep my focus on basophils for now.

Translation: "If I wait a bit, I hope you will forget about the very awkward questions you have raised about this study."

Advise: We won't.

trust me I will go into detail on thermoluminescence. it is one of my favorite subjects. This is where the groundwork will be laid.

The future tense of your statement in duly noted: "will be laid". This may be so, but it certainly ain't laid yet.

It excites me just thinking about it. Imagine that we can dilute a substance out of existance yet still be able to detect it --and they think it has something to do with hydrogen bonding.

"Imagine" "they think". Let's stick to FACTS for a moment: The only conclusion that can be drawn from the thermoluminiscence study is:

1) We had two vials.
2) They showed different spectra.



what do you think?

I think your case is vapor thin at the moment.

Hans

 

[Olaf/QII]

So basically, the AMAZING, EARTHSHAKING, INCREDIBLE is just you guessing because you don't really remember what the paper said? Oh well, it's not that hard to understand or remember but by all means, take your time.

When you're done:

What is left when you cut through all the "probably due to", "much to our surprise", "remarkable" and "probably thanks to" and take into account that N=1 and no check on purity of samples is reported?

I put a lot of time into it. Enough to know that it is solid. Before i START A TOPIC ON IT i WILL READ IT AGAIN. (WHOOPS hit the caps key)

You skeptics should be glad that I read the papers. It makes for a much more interesting discussion.

I will start a topic on it. I want to make sure all of you are aware of it so that when the next one comes along you won't be able to play dumb about this one.

 

[Olaf/QII]

good morning Hans!

###########################

I'll tell you what i'd like to do. i like to talk to some of the physicists and chemists on this forum to get their input on how difficult it would be for more work to be done with ultra-dilute solutions.

i would like to know what elements would give a positive reading.

Would it work for potassium, just the 1A elements, can they dilute to 10(-100), etc???

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'll tell you what i'd like to do. i like to talk to some of the physicists and chemists on this forum to get their input on how difficult it would be for more work to be done with ultra-dilute solutions.

They're here. The moment you start talking sense, they're likely to pay attention.

i would like to know what elements would give a positive reading.

Would it work for potassium, just the 1A elements, can they dilute to 10(-100), etc???

It is unlikely to work for anything. About 10^-100, see below

This is another "funny" thing about all the reports you have linked to: They keep talking about theoretical dilution ratios of 10^-34, and the like. This is insincere. There is no theoretical dilution ratio of more than 10^-24, but these people keep pretending that Avogadro's number doesn't exist.

What they fail to explain is: What is the logical purpose of subesquent dilution steps below 10^-24?

Even IF there is some water memory effect, what is the difference between, say 30C and 100C, except repeating a lot of identical diluting and shaking some shaken water?

Hans

 

[Jocce]

I put a lot of time into it. Enough to know that it is solid. Before i START A TOPIC ON IT i WILL READ IT AGAIN.

Either you're lying and did NOT put much time into it or you simply didn't understand what you read. As has been pointed out to you, it is not as solid as you are implying. I'll leave you to deal with the other experiment for now and eagerly await your new thread on the thermoluminescence topic.

 

[Olaf/QII]

Even IF there is some water memory effect, what is the difference between, say 30C and 100C, except repeating a lot of identical diluting and shaking some shaken water?

Hans

I certainly don't know, but I do know that something spooky/strange is going on and it drives me crazy not knowing what it is. It drives me crazy that things are preceding so slowly. There must be hundreds of varaitions of louis rey's work and we have no idea who is working on what or what journal it will appear in.

Jocce,
for the last time, i put a lot or time into the paper. however, i do not want to get myself sidetracked. i believe that a thorough examination of one paper at a time is the best approach. a person could spend 3 months just on the several histamine/basophil papers that exist.