What is paranormal in Homeopathy

Dr. MAS said:
Yes, kumar :D

I deliberately changed the real “proverb” into my language...
Click to expand...

I think you are justified in these words. They want both science & homeopathy in science, not science in homeopathic language/protocols or homeopathy in homeopathic language/protocols.

Paranormal can be defined as which Describes events or abilities beyond or above normal human powers or senses.

If a mass existing concept/system in well distributed public since long with least adversities, can easily be seen/noted by visiting/survey of homeopathic clinics, it describes "events or abilities within normal human powers or senses" --so can't be taken as "paranormal". When people can understand (as I could by cat, inspite it is wrong in science" most cats neither claim any house as her home/territory nor attack or behave alike lion at home, eg; I/most don't fear going in any home with cat & cat is said to be guru/second mother of lion), whatever may be the language, it can't be paranormal. Moreover any aspect can be requested by any foriegner to be explained in its traditional style and language as suitale to that aspect, and acceptance of that type, language or translation will be the duty/job of that foreigner.
 
Dr. MAS said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TheBoyPaj

Oh-oh. What we have here is a troll with a white coat and a 'Dr.' in front of his name.

Dr. MAS: I am not a troll. I have only one alias.
Click to expand...


I did not write the above. Please watch your quoting.

(I agree with it, though)
 
Dr. MAS said:
Now it’s your job to design another method or protocol to teach me, because I have not followed your previous method of instruction.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. A perfectly acceptable double-blind protocol exists. I have no compulsion to assist in the design of a protocol which YOU like, but which does not test the effectiveness of your treatments.

I'm pretty sure no one else here feels like doing that either.
 
Kumar said:
I think you are justified in these words. They want both science & homeopathy in science, not science in homeopathic language/protocols or homeopathy in homeopathic language/protocols.

Paranormal can be defined as which Describes events or abilities beyond or above normal human powers or senses.

If a mass existing concept/system in well distributed public since long with least adversities, can easily be seen/noted by visiting/survey of homeopathic clinics, it describes "events or abilities within normal human powers or senses" --so can't be taken as "paranormal". When people can understand (as I could by cat, inspite it is wrong in science" most cats neither claim any house as her home/territory nor attack or behave alike lion at home, eg; I/most don't fear going in any home with cat & cat is said to be guru/second mother of lion), whatever may be the language, it can't be paranormal. Moreover any aspect can be requested by any foriegner to be explained in its traditional style and language as suitale to that aspect, and acceptance of that type, language or translation will be the duty/job of that foreigner.
Click to expand...
I should point out, Dr MAS, that Kumar is only a resident troll pretending to be an Indian homeopath. He frequently comes out with this sort of nonsensical gobbledegook which means precisely nothing at all. However his little slips back into good grammar, and other gaffes, make it clearly obvious that he is a non-Indian who is making it all up in order to be a serial pest.

Engage him at your own peril.
 
Zep said:
I should point out, Dr MAS, that Kumar is only a resident troll pretending to be an Indian homeopath. He frequently comes out with this sort of nonsensical gobbledegook which means precisely nothing at all. However his little slips back into good grammar, and other gaffes, make it clearly obvious that he is a non-Indian who is making it all up in order to be a serial pest.

Engage him at your own peril.
Click to expand...

Btw, how you have behaved & what you have declared to other homeopaths, who were trying to help you in understanding this system. What you can predict, how will you behave with .'Great Dr.Mas' :) ? Will you learn from him (obiously after 50 posts) or will also call him a troll or otherwise (somewhat already started), similarily--if he advocate homeopathy in his best knowledge & in its true language as he is well qualified, experianced & reputed in this system. I cn't support him as he himself is well capable in handling any situation, provided time permits.

Moreover, whatever you post/comments, are all not in accordance to your qualifications. If you get, more qualified, more knowledgeble person teaching you than you in a field under discussion, just try to learn as a student.
 
OK let go back to basics

Why do we consider homeopathy akin to the paranormal?

The simplest reason is that many homeopathic remedies have been diluted to the point where on average they contain less than one molecule. Any remedy of greater potency than 24X and 12C will contain less than 1 molecule on average (I don't have the figures for LM to hand but can provide them if required). This is due to Avogadro's number. This means that almost all high potency remedies will contain no original material. Those that do will contain it at such a low levels (single molecules) that it is impossible for it to have a biological effect.

Now on to how to test your claims.

There are a number of ways of attempting to do it. Two are outlined in the papers below:
http://thorax.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/58/4/317

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/op...06-5251&date=2003&volume=56&issue=5&spage=562
 
I was just wondering why homeopathy is classed as paranormal? As stated on this thread it is not scientifically proven to be successful, but surely this does not make it paranormal?
 
Read the thread again. It's not just that it hasn't been proven. It's because it appears to be scientifically impossible.
 
Dr. MAS,

Since you think using colors somehow helps you get your point across better, perhaps you might be inclined to answer this question:

Is there any way to demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathic drugs while eliminating all other explanations?

YES OR NO?
 
Janice said:
I was just wondering why homeopathy is classed as paranormal? As stated on this thread it is not scientifically proven to be successful, but surely this does not make it paranormal?
Click to expand...

Paranomal is a very loose term.
 
Shades of Roger Coghill!

An oft asked question on this board is "What is meant by a 'woo-woo' ? "

This , people , is a woo-woo. Someone who ought to know better, but either does not, or pretends not to , for his own reasons.

The objection to homoeopathy is not that it is paranormal; the objection is that it is nonsense.

If it is not nonsense, I am open to conversion.

Show me the evidence.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Shades of Roger Coghill!

An oft asked question on this board is "What is meant by a 'woo-woo' ? "

This , people , is a woo-woo. Someone who ought to know better, but either does not, or pretends not to , for his own reasons.

The objection to homoeopathy is not that it is paranormal; the objection is that it is nonsense.

If it is not nonsense, I am open to conversion.

Show me the evidence.
Click to expand...

Nonsense perhaps in your opinion but not to everyone, personally I have never had it, so cannot comment on its results.
 
Janice said:
Nonsense perhaps in your opinion but not to everyone,
Click to expand...
Opinion doesn't come into it - medical trials do.
personally I have never had it, so cannot comment on its results.
Click to expand...
 I have never had heroin - but I can certainly comment on its "results".

As to homeopathy, here is the UK's NHS's view:Homeopathy according to the NHS.

It has proven very difficult to produce clinical evidence in support of homeopathy’s effectiveness.

Despite the inability to reproduce the anecdotal evidence in clinical trials, homeopathy remains one of the most popular complementary therapies in the UK.
 
TheBoyPaj said:
Unfortunately, it also says the following:

"Randomised controlled trials of homeopathy have shown a positive outcome for the treatment of influenza (‘flu), diarrhoea in children, allergic conditions and postoperative ileus (temporary loss of normal intestinal action following surgery). "

(http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.asp?TopicID=247&AreaID=1505&LinkID=1108)
Click to expand...
Man, that whole article is practically schizophrenic. I hadn't realised the funding for new schools had so influenced the NHS.

Hmmm, election coming up, where's the MP letter writing thread....
 
Dr. MAS said:
Dr. MAS: Your posts main stress is on my qualification, your entire posts are on my personality and character. But me is interested in seeking answer of my first question.
Click to expand...
I don't think so.

Ths following are excerpts from my posts on this thread, in order.
As far as the question goes, it's a wide-ranging subject.

First, what is paranormal about homoeopathy is that there is absolutely nothing in the remedies (at least at the "potencies" most often used by professional homoeopaths). No remedy substance and no measurable or theoretical "energies" and no altered structure of the carrier substances. So if there is an effect there, then it's by some means quite unknown to science.

Second, the reason it is not accepted as scientific medicine (which doesn't actually have a huge problem with things it doesn't entirely understand, consider gaseous anaesthetics) is that nobody has ever been able to prove conclusively that there's any effect there at all. Combine that with the absence of anything in the remedies, and you can maybe see the problem.

It really is remarkably easy for any physician to convince themselves that a useless intervention is having a beneficial effect. The body is so good at healing itself, and the suggestibility of both patients and physicians is so high that all sorts of subsequently-disproved things have in their time been hailed as great cures. This is why evidence-based medicine was developed. Objective testing of treatments to see whether the effect is real or coincidental/illusory have punctured more than a few complacent bubbles and led to many cherished but useless therapies being withdrawn.

The odd thing about homoeopathy is the remarkable tenacity of its adherents in clinging to the belief that there's a real effect going on, in the teeth of all the evidence that there isn't. Consider, the claim is that the effect is so striking that it is obvious even at the level of the clinical anecdote, and indeed many positively miraculous cures are reported. Any effect this strong should be very simple to demonstrate by a controlled trial. After all, controlled trials have shown up very small effects which hadn't even been suspected at clinic level - often adverse effects, as it happens, but the principle is the same. However, this does not happen with homoeopathy. Instead, the allegedly miraculous and striking results retreat to the borders of statistical noise, leaving the best anyone can say of the science, there might be an effect there, but then again there might not. Does that sound like a good basis to be claiming to heal people?

Another thing to consider, as regards homoeopathy and science, is the lack of serious interest by physicists and chemists. If there is a real effect present in homoeopathic remedies then this must be due to a completely unknown aspect of the material world, and it means that a great deal of what we think we know about how the physical universe works is likely to be wrong or at the very least woefully incomplete. Physicists and chemists would be all over this if it really happened. There would be innumerable PhDs to be had, and probably even a Nobel Prize for whoever was able to rewrite the whole of science to explain this effect. But nobody is interested.

Why? Because the evidence to the impartial observer is that homoeopathy depends entirely on coincidental recovery and wishful thinking for its effects (with a dash of observer bias), and those who believe that the remedies are actually doing something are simply mistaken. While there is a Nobel Prize for solving a real mystery, it is professional suicide to spend one's career trying to prove there is science behind a delusion. See the history of the Pons/Fleischmann experiment in cold fusion as an example.
Click to expand...
Actually, the other reason it's paranormal is that it's pure, unadulterated Sympathetic Magic.
Click to expand...
Dr. MAS said:
"What is paranormal in homeopathy"? So that we could go further?
Click to expand...
I think we already covered that. There is nothing at all in the remedies, apart from the stock carrier material. No molecules remaining from the "mother tincture", no alteration in the structure of the carrier material, and no mysterious energies of any kind. Thus, if the remedies are having an effect on the body, it is through some means completely unknown to science.

Also, its theory fulfills all the criteria of Sympathetic Magic.

You have been listening to Bach too much. The question we ask about homoeopathy is whether the remedies themselves have any effect on the body. We acknowledge that the whole homoeopathic consultation process can be beneficial to people, in a psychological way, and that people who desperately want to believe they have been given good treatment are apt to persuade themselves they are better. However, do the remedies have an effect of themselves?

To answer this is is necessary to take two comparable groups of people and treat them exactly the same, apart from the fact that while the members of one group are given their selected, individualised remedy, the members of the other group are given only untreated sugar pills. Who is in which group is kept secret from everyone involved in the study.

At the end, you make as objective measurements as you can, standardised across all the patients, to see who has actually improved or not. Then the secrecy is broken, and we look to see if those who got their prescribed remedies did better than those who didn't.

Now, this exercise is known as a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, but that's just the label. It is simply a tool to discover whether a treatment is having a real effect, or whether the effects people have though were there are just a combination of coincidence and wishful thinking. What is your objection to using that test for homoeopathy (apart from the fact that homoeopathy always fails)? What different a test would you suggest?

Your idea with the AIDS or hepatitis patients is interesting, but you have to define what you mean by "cure". These chronic diseases often go through periods when the patient feels quite well. You must come up with a definition of actual cure which can be tested and proved. You also have to show that a similar group of people who didn't get the homoeopathy were not cured. Which of course makes it a placebo-controlled trial.

Do you really think you can cure AIDS? Why are you and other homoeopaths not doing this on a large scale, then?
Click to expand...
Dr. MAS said:
"Is this your paranormal question? Which remedy substance do you want to see? Which energy do you want measure?

Please clearly tell us what is your exact demand? So that we could make arrangement to show our verdict.
Click to expand...
I Think Zep already explained, but I'll try again. We want you to show that you can tell a 30C "potentised" remedy from the stock sugar pills or solvent. Alternatively, that you can tell a 30C homoeopathic preparation of one substance from a 30C homoeopathic preparation of another. (Actually, the potency isn't important, so long as it is above 12C or 34X.)

You can do this by any chemical or physical method you like, or by "proving" the remedy, or by using it to treat patients, or anything else you can come up with. You just have to do it often enough to prove that you're not just a lucky guesser. And the reason that we discuss this is that the JREF will give a million dollars to anyone who can do this under sufficiently strict conditions.
Click to expand...
Originally posted by Dr Mas
Because here the main question still exists “ What is paranormal in homeopathy in your sense”?
Click to expand...
We have already answered this several times.
  1. The claim that one substance (the potentised remedy) can have an effect on the body which another identical substance does not.
  2. The fact that homoeopathic theory conforms in every way to the principles of Sympathetic Magic.[/list=1]
Click to expand...
  1. Now, could we leave the unimportant things and get back to whether you can tell a potentised remedy from the stock carrier material, and how you propose to prove your claim that homoeopathy can cure serious diseases.
    Click to expand...
    As Zep asked, do you have trouble reading?

    What is your problem with my answers as to why homoeopathy is both in practice and in principle, magic? I repeat again, the claim is that two identical items (the potentised remedy and the stock sugar pills) have different effects, because of the spell that has been cast on one of them (the potentisation). If you are still having trouble with this, perhaps you would like to read a paper by a very famous German homoeopath, Harald Walach - Magic of Signs.

    Do you simply intend to ignore all posts which answer your questions, and continue to repeat the questions? Because if so this thread is going to become very boring.

    Rolfe.
 
Dr. MAS said:
quote:Dr. MAS: This depends upon the proof which you want to confirm. So for homeopaths claimed that their homeopathic medicines have healing effect / power against fatal diseases. If you say “No”, then a protocol can be defined to prove that but first cover over to that point, either we cannot prove anything. :brk:

You see, all you have different demands to prove, one is saying prove the potency other is saying what is cure and few are not interested in homeo healing effect. First you people decide what do you want from us to confirm?
Click to expand...

Dr. MAS,

Zep, Rolfe & others have provided reasonable protocols for testing any or all of the claims of "potency", dilution effect, and "homeo healing effect". Which one are you willing to test?

I think that I speak for many here when I say that we would be pleasantly surprised and enthusiastically supportive (some would be astounded) if you were to undertake to test any of the three aspects of your claim. My guess is that you will not - your mind is made up, and you have, I think, already decided that DBT protocols somehow do not apply to homoeopathy; a position for which you have not, incidentally, provided justification.

So, from my perspective at any rate, you are rejecting any reasoned scientific approach to testing your position.

You have also been given several very good explanations as to why homoeopathy might be considered to be paranormal. While I fail to see what bearing your question has on the efficacy of homoeopathy (aside from whether it qualifies for the JREF Challenge), the fact is that the question has been asked and answered.

So, Dr. MAS, is there a point to further discussion, and if there is, what is it?
 
Dr. MAS said:
Don’t worry, I am the one who is banned at all HOMEOPATHIC FORUMS, :D Hence I am already on my toes. If you assure me that admin will not impose ban on me then you will see we will sit on our toes. The time will decide either you leave or I depart from here. (Please do not treat it as a threat; this is just my guess of future scenario of Randy land. I believe that you will all leave this thread after declaring me cerebral ataxia patient. :D
Click to expand...
A few more points for your consideration about this forum:
  1. The Admins are NOT here to administer what you have to say, except if you are in violation of a few rules about good manners and swearing and violence and so on. The Admins also do not delete posts they don't like, and they don't ban posters they don't like (unless they break the rules above). You will find this a completely refreshing reversal from most (if not all) homeopathy forums.
  2. We skeptics also don't mind what you have to say at all - we don't go crying to mummy if you try to offend us. We encourage full and frank debate. You've got an opposing view on some subject? Fine! Bring it on. We often disagree amongst ourselves, so you disagreeing with us is just another opinion in the mix and absolutely fine with us.
  3. This is not "Randi-land" (and please note correct spelling of Mr Randi's name). We are not a cheer-squad for James Randi. For a start, he's rarely on the forum personally anyway. And on various occasions, we have taken him to task ourselves for things some of us disagree with that he has said about various subjects, and he is quite OK with this! Some people here don't like him much at all...that's fine!
"this is just my guess of future scenario of Randy land. I believe that you will all leave this thread after declaring me cerebral ataxia patient

You will most likely be wrong, but that situation is all up to you, not us.

So have you anything to say pertinent to the subject of testing homeopathy for efficacy?
 
Dear respected members,

We (homeopaths celebrate 10th and 11th April as "Hahnemann Day". I was called at Gujranwala to deliver lecture. I told him about this discussion. They were also interested to participate.

Today's activities were hectic. I could not find time to visit this forum which is very good and informative.

I will visit this forum again and would like to comments on each post. Let me give some time.

YOU WILL BE PLEASED TO KNOW THAT WORLD HOMEOPATHIC COMPUTER CLUB (whcc) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY. THE AGENDA IS TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF RANDI CLAIM ON HOMEOPATHY. THE DETAILS WILL BE DISCLOSED ON WEDNESDAY.

I am thankful to everyone who participated in the discussion. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom