Calling all wlaking Chiropracters, Osteopaths, Physiotherapists and Doctors



In message <[email protected]>, Simon Challands
<[email protected]> writes
>
>To clarify - the ulcer is an effect, the bacteria a cause. Like
>bumblebees, no-one argued that the effect exists. Scientists often
>argue like mad about the causes of an effect, but only of those
>effects they are reasonably confident about observing. Other times
>they'll look to see if they can discover previously unknown effects
>predicted by existing theories, theories which are based on generally
>accepted effects. Homeopathy doesn't fit in with either of those, and
>is unscientific because it hasn't been largely rejected as a result.
>Sometimes accepted explanations are overturned simply because when
>push comes to shove, no evidence can be found for them (the Michelson-
>Morely experiment being the classic example).
>

On the subject of homeopathy "A Day at the Pharmacy" blog contains the
following priceless story:

http://www.mrhunnybun.com/

"Naughty pharmacists.

My colleague is renowned for being somewhat of a cowboy. There are a lot
of Homeopathic preparations, all packed in nearly identical little
plastic pots. Being, like myself, somewhat sceptical and cynical, he
decided that he would only keep one pot of Homeopathic medication and
dispense those tablets for every Homeopathic prescription that he had.

His logic was flawless - If any professional colleague reported him he
could simply say they were mistaken and there was no way that he could
have been caught. What would they do, assay the tablets which would
contain not one molecule of active ingredient either way.

This started in 1992 and continued until recently. Hundreds, maybe even
thousands, of prescriptions presented to him and every single one
dispensed with Nelsons Rhus Tox. (That's the most diluted one and
therefore the strongest, right?!)

How many complaints did he have in all these years? Not one. Not one
patient noticed he was taking a harmless placebo and the doctor never
realised that her patients remained unmedicated.

So, either Rhus Tox in minuscule quantities is a miracle cure for
everything, or all homeopathic medications are interchangeable. Hmm,
that's a tough one."

Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
 
In message <[email protected]>, Simon Challands
<[email protected]> writes
>
>To clarify - the ulcer is an effect, the bacteria a cause. Like
>bumblebees, no-one argued that the effect exists. Scientists often
>argue like mad about the causes of an effect, but only of those
>effects they are reasonably confident about observing. Other times
>they'll look to see if they can discover previously unknown effects
>predicted by existing theories, theories which are based on generally
>accepted effects. Homeopathy doesn't fit in with either of those, and
>is unscientific because it hasn't been largely rejected as a result.
>Sometimes accepted explanations are overturned simply because when
>push comes to shove, no evidence can be found for them (the Michelson-
>Morely experiment being the classic example).
>

On the subject of homeopathy "A Day at the Pharmacy" blog contains the
following priceless story:

http://www.mrhunnybun.com/

"Naughty pharmacists.

My colleague is renowned for being somewhat of a cowboy. There are a lot
of Homeopathic preparations, all packed in nearly identical little
plastic pots. Being, like myself, somewhat sceptical and cynical, he
decided that he would only keep one pot of Homeopathic medication and
dispense those tablets for every Homeopathic prescription that he had.

His logic was flawless - If any professional colleague reported him he
could simply say they were mistaken and there was no way that he could
have been caught. What would they do, assay the tablets which would
contain not one molecule of active ingredient either way.

This started in 1992 and continued until recently. Hundreds, maybe even
thousands, of prescriptions presented to him and every single one
dispensed with Nelsons Rhus Tox. (That's the most diluted one and
therefore the strongest, right?!)

How many complaints did he have in all these years? Not one. Not one
patient noticed he was taking a harmless placebo and the doctor never
realised that her patients remained unmedicated.

So, either Rhus Tox in minuscule quantities is a miracle cure for
everything, or all homeopathic medications are interchangeable. Hmm,
that's a tough one."

Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
 
Citizen Jimserac wrote:

> This point is quite well taken! There are serious observational
> limitations at the Quantum level. The only way out on that one might
> be the "many universe" theory which I don't like but Deutsch's
> writings are VERY persuasive.

The finer points of the quantum world are lost on me, I'm afraid. One
of those subjects where I went to the lectures, it all seemed to make
sense when we worked through examples together but when it came to doing
them myself I just didn't know where to start. So I'll not pretend I'm
an expert on quantum theory or have anything beyond a fairly limited
understanding of it.

But while there's a whole lot of stuff down there we can never quite
see, it strikes me that if all it takes to significantly alter a major
aspect of body chemistry is the change of a few energy states in a few
molecules then we'd be pretty screwed, because our bodies would become
so chaotic they would never survive.

Observationally, chemical reactions don't typically go all wonky for no
particular observable reason, despite the possibility of lots of
possible differences in the exact energy states of everything involved.
So if they don't do that outside the body, why should they do it
inside? The main problem with testing things on a person is a human
body is a remarkably complicated bit of kit in which it's hard to
properly isolate effects. There simply isn't any need to create a whole
raft of speculation at the quantum level because (a) there's plenty of
room for speculation at the molecular level and (b) there's no real
evidence from more controllable lab conditions that this sort of oddness
clearly occurs.

As "me" states, what you don't have is a clear demonstration of effect,
so it's a bit premature to look for causes. And while it's tricky to
get a drug trial completely *right*, as you've already said, it /is/
easy to see clear effects that correlate well: if I take a Beta Blocker,
my heart will slow down, if I drink a lot of alcohol, I will get
intoxicated, and so on. It /should/ be possible to do this with a
homeopathic approach, because at the end of the day it's just another
sort of drug, or at least an attempt at one.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Citizen Jimserac wrote:

> This point is quite well taken! There are serious observational
> limitations at the Quantum level. The only way out on that one might
> be the "many universe" theory which I don't like but Deutsch's
> writings are VERY persuasive.

The finer points of the quantum world are lost on me, I'm afraid. One
of those subjects where I went to the lectures, it all seemed to make
sense when we worked through examples together but when it came to doing
them myself I just didn't know where to start. So I'll not pretend I'm
an expert on quantum theory or have anything beyond a fairly limited
understanding of it.

But while there's a whole lot of stuff down there we can never quite
see, it strikes me that if all it takes to significantly alter a major
aspect of body chemistry is the change of a few energy states in a few
molecules then we'd be pretty screwed, because our bodies would become
so chaotic they would never survive.

Observationally, chemical reactions don't typically go all wonky for no
particular observable reason, despite the possibility of lots of
possible differences in the exact energy states of everything involved.
So if they don't do that outside the body, why should they do it
inside? The main problem with testing things on a person is a human
body is a remarkably complicated bit of kit in which it's hard to
properly isolate effects. There simply isn't any need to create a whole
raft of speculation at the quantum level because (a) there's plenty of
room for speculation at the molecular level and (b) there's no real
evidence from more controllable lab conditions that this sort of oddness
clearly occurs.

As "me" states, what you don't have is a clear demonstration of effect,
so it's a bit premature to look for causes. And while it's tricky to
get a drug trial completely *right*, as you've already said, it /is/
easy to see clear effects that correlate well: if I take a Beta Blocker,
my heart will slow down, if I drink a lot of alcohol, I will get
intoxicated, and so on. It /should/ be possible to do this with a
homeopathic approach, because at the end of the day it's just another
sort of drug, or at least an attempt at one.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Citizen Jimserac wrote:

> This point is quite well taken! There are serious observational
> limitations at the Quantum level. The only way out on that one might
> be the "many universe" theory which I don't like but Deutsch's
> writings are VERY persuasive.

The finer points of the quantum world are lost on me, I'm afraid. One
of those subjects where I went to the lectures, it all seemed to make
sense when we worked through examples together but when it came to doing
them myself I just didn't know where to start. So I'll not pretend I'm
an expert on quantum theory or have anything beyond a fairly limited
understanding of it.

But while there's a whole lot of stuff down there we can never quite
see, it strikes me that if all it takes to significantly alter a major
aspect of body chemistry is the change of a few energy states in a few
molecules then we'd be pretty screwed, because our bodies would become
so chaotic they would never survive.

Observationally, chemical reactions don't typically go all wonky for no
particular observable reason, despite the possibility of lots of
possible differences in the exact energy states of everything involved.
So if they don't do that outside the body, why should they do it
inside? The main problem with testing things on a person is a human
body is a remarkably complicated bit of kit in which it's hard to
properly isolate effects. There simply isn't any need to create a whole
raft of speculation at the quantum level because (a) there's plenty of
room for speculation at the molecular level and (b) there's no real
evidence from more controllable lab conditions that this sort of oddness
clearly occurs.

As "me" states, what you don't have is a clear demonstration of effect,
so it's a bit premature to look for causes. And while it's tricky to
get a drug trial completely *right*, as you've already said, it /is/
easy to see clear effects that correlate well: if I take a Beta Blocker,
my heart will slow down, if I drink a lot of alcohol, I will get
intoxicated, and so on. It /should/ be possible to do this with a
homeopathic approach, because at the end of the day it's just another
sort of drug, or at least an attempt at one.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Citizen Jimserac wrote:

> This point is quite well taken! There are serious observational
> limitations at the Quantum level. The only way out on that one might
> be the "many universe" theory which I don't like but Deutsch's
> writings are VERY persuasive.

The finer points of the quantum world are lost on me, I'm afraid. One
of those subjects where I went to the lectures, it all seemed to make
sense when we worked through examples together but when it came to doing
them myself I just didn't know where to start. So I'll not pretend I'm
an expert on quantum theory or have anything beyond a fairly limited
understanding of it.

But while there's a whole lot of stuff down there we can never quite
see, it strikes me that if all it takes to significantly alter a major
aspect of body chemistry is the change of a few energy states in a few
molecules then we'd be pretty screwed, because our bodies would become
so chaotic they would never survive.

Observationally, chemical reactions don't typically go all wonky for no
particular observable reason, despite the possibility of lots of
possible differences in the exact energy states of everything involved.
So if they don't do that outside the body, why should they do it
inside? The main problem with testing things on a person is a human
body is a remarkably complicated bit of kit in which it's hard to
properly isolate effects. There simply isn't any need to create a whole
raft of speculation at the quantum level because (a) there's plenty of
room for speculation at the molecular level and (b) there's no real
evidence from more controllable lab conditions that this sort of oddness
clearly occurs.

As "me" states, what you don't have is a clear demonstration of effect,
so it's a bit premature to look for causes. And while it's tricky to
get a drug trial completely *right*, as you've already said, it /is/
easy to see clear effects that correlate well: if I take a Beta Blocker,
my heart will slow down, if I drink a lot of alcohol, I will get
intoxicated, and so on. It /should/ be possible to do this with a
homeopathic approach, because at the end of the day it's just another
sort of drug, or at least an attempt at one.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Nov 7, 4:13 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 3:50 pm, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 8:22 am, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > You're back to your bumble bee problem. You're discussing
> > > a phenomenon that has been observed and dealing with the
> > > potential explanations for these observations.
> [snip]
> > > The issue science has with many of these folk cures is
> > > that there is no real demonstration that anything is actually
> > > happening. Science keeps an "open mind", but there is a
> > > process to these things and the first step in that process is
> > > documenting the observation.
>
> > Well I certainly see your points - good as far they go
> > which is not far enough -> here's why.
>
> > Let me give, as an example, the discovery of h. pylori bacteria as the
> > cause of one type of well known stomach ulcer. Now, as you may
> > already know or can find out from google, when the theory that ANY
> > stomach ulcers were being caused by bacteria was first proposed, it
> > was met with opposition, consternation, even derision because ulcers
> > had been known for centuries and NOBODY had found any bacteria to
> > explain the ulcer which was,
> > in the standard medical explanation, written off as due to "stress".
>
> You're back to the bumble bee problem again. You're discussing
> how one establishes a cause and effect relationship. These
> folks cures are having trouble establishing any effect, much
> less reaching a conclusion about cause.
>
> [snip]> Now, I submit to you that EXACTLY the same thing is happening in the
> > realm of homeopathy and in other alternative therapies.
>
> [snip]
>
> Nope. These alternative therapies, when exposed to strict
> protocals,
> have trouble demonstrating that there is any effect at all. Whether
> these alternatives are responsible is secondary to establishing the
> existence of _AN_ effect to begin with. They cannot be established
> to be effective, when there is not effect to measure.

1. The testing methods for pharmaceutical drugs, which are designed
for masses of people may not only be inappropriate for homeopathic
remedies, but also lead to persistently invalid results. Homeopathic
drugs are targeted to an INDIVIDUAL person. Logically, this would
seem to me to involve a far more rigorous and difficult and involved
testing procedure than that used for pharmaceuticals.

As has already been admitted in these discussions, the deaths which
sometimes occur in the general population after using pharmaceutical
drugs which have passed the testing process is due to unavoidable
limitations in their testing process - the test sample vs. the actual
population of users.

2. People designing the tests for homeopathic drugs have a bad habit
of altering the test parameters when the homeopathic remedies start
showing favorable or positive results. i provided a link to a much
ballyhooed Lancet journal article from 2005 which purported to
"scientifically" show that the homeopathic drugs had no effect, only
to be met with a storm of opposition, even by the allopaths, that the
testing had been sloppily done. The definitive "expose" test
therefore inconclusive.

Points 1. and 2. lead me to disagree.

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 7, 4:13 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 3:50 pm, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 8:22 am, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > You're back to your bumble bee problem. You're discussing
> > > a phenomenon that has been observed and dealing with the
> > > potential explanations for these observations.
> [snip]
> > > The issue science has with many of these folk cures is
> > > that there is no real demonstration that anything is actually
> > > happening. Science keeps an "open mind", but there is a
> > > process to these things and the first step in that process is
> > > documenting the observation.
>
> > Well I certainly see your points - good as far they go
> > which is not far enough -> here's why.
>
> > Let me give, as an example, the discovery of h. pylori bacteria as the
> > cause of one type of well known stomach ulcer. Now, as you may
> > already know or can find out from google, when the theory that ANY
> > stomach ulcers were being caused by bacteria was first proposed, it
> > was met with opposition, consternation, even derision because ulcers
> > had been known for centuries and NOBODY had found any bacteria to
> > explain the ulcer which was,
> > in the standard medical explanation, written off as due to "stress".
>
> You're back to the bumble bee problem again. You're discussing
> how one establishes a cause and effect relationship. These
> folks cures are having trouble establishing any effect, much
> less reaching a conclusion about cause.
>
> [snip]> Now, I submit to you that EXACTLY the same thing is happening in the
> > realm of homeopathy and in other alternative therapies.
>
> [snip]
>
> Nope. These alternative therapies, when exposed to strict
> protocals,
> have trouble demonstrating that there is any effect at all. Whether
> these alternatives are responsible is secondary to establishing the
> existence of _AN_ effect to begin with. They cannot be established
> to be effective, when there is not effect to measure.

1. The testing methods for pharmaceutical drugs, which are designed
for masses of people may not only be inappropriate for homeopathic
remedies, but also lead to persistently invalid results. Homeopathic
drugs are targeted to an INDIVIDUAL person. Logically, this would
seem to me to involve a far more rigorous and difficult and involved
testing procedure than that used for pharmaceuticals.

As has already been admitted in these discussions, the deaths which
sometimes occur in the general population after using pharmaceutical
drugs which have passed the testing process is due to unavoidable
limitations in their testing process - the test sample vs. the actual
population of users.

2. People designing the tests for homeopathic drugs have a bad habit
of altering the test parameters when the homeopathic remedies start
showing favorable or positive results. i provided a link to a much
ballyhooed Lancet journal article from 2005 which purported to
"scientifically" show that the homeopathic drugs had no effect, only
to be met with a storm of opposition, even by the allopaths, that the
testing had been sloppily done. The definitive "expose" test
therefore inconclusive.

Points 1. and 2. lead me to disagree.

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 7, 4:13 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 3:50 pm, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 8:22 am, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > You're back to your bumble bee problem. You're discussing
> > > a phenomenon that has been observed and dealing with the
> > > potential explanations for these observations.
> [snip]
> > > The issue science has with many of these folk cures is
> > > that there is no real demonstration that anything is actually
> > > happening. Science keeps an "open mind", but there is a
> > > process to these things and the first step in that process is
> > > documenting the observation.
>
> > Well I certainly see your points - good as far they go
> > which is not far enough -> here's why.
>
> > Let me give, as an example, the discovery of h. pylori bacteria as the
> > cause of one type of well known stomach ulcer. Now, as you may
> > already know or can find out from google, when the theory that ANY
> > stomach ulcers were being caused by bacteria was first proposed, it
> > was met with opposition, consternation, even derision because ulcers
> > had been known for centuries and NOBODY had found any bacteria to
> > explain the ulcer which was,
> > in the standard medical explanation, written off as due to "stress".
>
> You're back to the bumble bee problem again. You're discussing
> how one establishes a cause and effect relationship. These
> folks cures are having trouble establishing any effect, much
> less reaching a conclusion about cause.
>
> [snip]> Now, I submit to you that EXACTLY the same thing is happening in the
> > realm of homeopathy and in other alternative therapies.
>
> [snip]
>
> Nope. These alternative therapies, when exposed to strict
> protocals,
> have trouble demonstrating that there is any effect at all. Whether
> these alternatives are responsible is secondary to establishing the
> existence of _AN_ effect to begin with. They cannot be established
> to be effective, when there is not effect to measure.

1. The testing methods for pharmaceutical drugs, which are designed
for masses of people may not only be inappropriate for homeopathic
remedies, but also lead to persistently invalid results. Homeopathic
drugs are targeted to an INDIVIDUAL person. Logically, this would
seem to me to involve a far more rigorous and difficult and involved
testing procedure than that used for pharmaceuticals.

As has already been admitted in these discussions, the deaths which
sometimes occur in the general population after using pharmaceutical
drugs which have passed the testing process is due to unavoidable
limitations in their testing process - the test sample vs. the actual
population of users.

2. People designing the tests for homeopathic drugs have a bad habit
of altering the test parameters when the homeopathic remedies start
showing favorable or positive results. i provided a link to a much
ballyhooed Lancet journal article from 2005 which purported to
"scientifically" show that the homeopathic drugs had no effect, only
to be met with a storm of opposition, even by the allopaths, that the
testing had been sloppily done. The definitive "expose" test
therefore inconclusive.

Points 1. and 2. lead me to disagree.

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 7, 4:13 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 3:50 pm, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 8:22 am, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > You're back to your bumble bee problem. You're discussing
> > > a phenomenon that has been observed and dealing with the
> > > potential explanations for these observations.
> [snip]
> > > The issue science has with many of these folk cures is
> > > that there is no real demonstration that anything is actually
> > > happening. Science keeps an "open mind", but there is a
> > > process to these things and the first step in that process is
> > > documenting the observation.
>
> > Well I certainly see your points - good as far they go
> > which is not far enough -> here's why.
>
> > Let me give, as an example, the discovery of h. pylori bacteria as the
> > cause of one type of well known stomach ulcer. Now, as you may
> > already know or can find out from google, when the theory that ANY
> > stomach ulcers were being caused by bacteria was first proposed, it
> > was met with opposition, consternation, even derision because ulcers
> > had been known for centuries and NOBODY had found any bacteria to
> > explain the ulcer which was,
> > in the standard medical explanation, written off as due to "stress".
>
> You're back to the bumble bee problem again. You're discussing
> how one establishes a cause and effect relationship. These
> folks cures are having trouble establishing any effect, much
> less reaching a conclusion about cause.
>
> [snip]> Now, I submit to you that EXACTLY the same thing is happening in the
> > realm of homeopathy and in other alternative therapies.
>
> [snip]
>
> Nope. These alternative therapies, when exposed to strict
> protocals,
> have trouble demonstrating that there is any effect at all. Whether
> these alternatives are responsible is secondary to establishing the
> existence of _AN_ effect to begin with. They cannot be established
> to be effective, when there is not effect to measure.

1. The testing methods for pharmaceutical drugs, which are designed
for masses of people may not only be inappropriate for homeopathic
remedies, but also lead to persistently invalid results. Homeopathic
drugs are targeted to an INDIVIDUAL person. Logically, this would
seem to me to involve a far more rigorous and difficult and involved
testing procedure than that used for pharmaceuticals.

As has already been admitted in these discussions, the deaths which
sometimes occur in the general population after using pharmaceutical
drugs which have passed the testing process is due to unavoidable
limitations in their testing process - the test sample vs. the actual
population of users.

2. People designing the tests for homeopathic drugs have a bad habit
of altering the test parameters when the homeopathic remedies start
showing favorable or positive results. i provided a link to a much
ballyhooed Lancet journal article from 2005 which purported to
"scientifically" show that the homeopathic drugs had no effect, only
to be met with a storm of opposition, even by the allopaths, that the
testing had been sloppily done. The definitive "expose" test
therefore inconclusive.

Points 1. and 2. lead me to disagree.

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 7, 7:02 pm, Simon Challands <[email protected]>
wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 7, 3:50 pm, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Let me give, as an example, the discovery of h. pylori bacteria as the
> >> cause of one type of well known stomach ulcer. Now, as you may
> >> already know or can find out from google, when the theory that ANY
> >> stomach ulcers were being caused by bacteria was first proposed, it
> >> was met with opposition, consternation, even derision because ulcers
> >> had been known for centuries and NOBODY had found any bacteria to
> >> explain the ulcer which was,
> >> in the standard medical explanation, written off as due to "stress".
> > You're back to the bumble bee problem again. You're discussing
> > how one establishes a cause and effect relationship. These
> > folks cures are having trouble establishing any effect, much
> > less reaching a conclusion about cause.
>
> To clarify - the ulcer is an effect, the bacteria a cause. Like
> bumblebees, no-one argued that the effect exists. Scientists often
> argue like mad about the causes of an effect, but only of those
> effects they are reasonably confident about observing. Other times
> they'll look to see if they can discover previously unknown effects
> predicted by existing theories, theories which are based on generally
> accepted effects. Homeopathy doesn't fit in with either of those, and
> is unscientific because it hasn't been largely rejected as a result.
> Sometimes accepted explanations are overturned simply because when
> push comes to shove, no evidence can be found for them (the Michelson-
> Morely experiment being the classic example).
>
> --
> Simon Challands

The Michelson-Morlely experiment has been revived in recent years
due to failures in relativity and other anomalies which can only be
explained by the presence of a wave transmission medium, if not the
ether
then something else. New experiments are being devised in this area.

As to the h. pylori bacteria, I will repeat once more, in case it was
overlooked:

"So, the
bacteria were never found BECAUSE NOBODY WAS LOOKING FOR THEM, and
NOBODY WAS LOOKING FOR THEM BECAUSE THE THEN CURRENT THEORY DID NOT
ADMIT FOR THE PRESENCE OF SUCH A CAUSE. "

That's not the BUMBLEBEE effect, it is the DOG CHASING ITS TAIL
EFFECT.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 7, 7:02 pm, Simon Challands <[email protected]>
wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 7, 3:50 pm, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Let me give, as an example, the discovery of h. pylori bacteria as the
> >> cause of one type of well known stomach ulcer. Now, as you may
> >> already know or can find out from google, when the theory that ANY
> >> stomach ulcers were being caused by bacteria was first proposed, it
> >> was met with opposition, consternation, even derision because ulcers
> >> had been known for centuries and NOBODY had found any bacteria to
> >> explain the ulcer which was,
> >> in the standard medical explanation, written off as due to "stress".
> > You're back to the bumble bee problem again. You're discussing
> > how one establishes a cause and effect relationship. These
> > folks cures are having trouble establishing any effect, much
> > less reaching a conclusion about cause.
>
> To clarify - the ulcer is an effect, the bacteria a cause. Like
> bumblebees, no-one argued that the effect exists. Scientists often
> argue like mad about the causes of an effect, but only of those
> effects they are reasonably confident about observing. Other times
> they'll look to see if they can discover previously unknown effects
> predicted by existing theories, theories which are based on generally
> accepted effects. Homeopathy doesn't fit in with either of those, and
> is unscientific because it hasn't been largely rejected as a result.
> Sometimes accepted explanations are overturned simply because when
> push comes to shove, no evidence can be found for them (the Michelson-
> Morely experiment being the classic example).
>
> --
> Simon Challands

The Michelson-Morlely experiment has been revived in recent years
due to failures in relativity and other anomalies which can only be
explained by the presence of a wave transmission medium, if not the
ether
then something else. New experiments are being devised in this area.

As to the h. pylori bacteria, I will repeat once more, in case it was
overlooked:

"So, the
bacteria were never found BECAUSE NOBODY WAS LOOKING FOR THEM, and
NOBODY WAS LOOKING FOR THEM BECAUSE THE THEN CURRENT THEORY DID NOT
ADMIT FOR THE PRESENCE OF SUCH A CAUSE. "

That's not the BUMBLEBEE effect, it is the DOG CHASING ITS TAIL
EFFECT.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 7, 7:02 pm, Simon Challands <[email protected]>
wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 7, 3:50 pm, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Let me give, as an example, the discovery of h. pylori bacteria as the
> >> cause of one type of well known stomach ulcer. Now, as you may
> >> already know or can find out from google, when the theory that ANY
> >> stomach ulcers were being caused by bacteria was first proposed, it
> >> was met with opposition, consternation, even derision because ulcers
> >> had been known for centuries and NOBODY had found any bacteria to
> >> explain the ulcer which was,
> >> in the standard medical explanation, written off as due to "stress".
> > You're back to the bumble bee problem again. You're discussing
> > how one establishes a cause and effect relationship. These
> > folks cures are having trouble establishing any effect, much
> > less reaching a conclusion about cause.
>
> To clarify - the ulcer is an effect, the bacteria a cause. Like
> bumblebees, no-one argued that the effect exists. Scientists often
> argue like mad about the causes of an effect, but only of those
> effects they are reasonably confident about observing. Other times
> they'll look to see if they can discover previously unknown effects
> predicted by existing theories, theories which are based on generally
> accepted effects. Homeopathy doesn't fit in with either of those, and
> is unscientific because it hasn't been largely rejected as a result.
> Sometimes accepted explanations are overturned simply because when
> push comes to shove, no evidence can be found for them (the Michelson-
> Morely experiment being the classic example).
>
> --
> Simon Challands

The Michelson-Morlely experiment has been revived in recent years
due to failures in relativity and other anomalies which can only be
explained by the presence of a wave transmission medium, if not the
ether
then something else. New experiments are being devised in this area.

As to the h. pylori bacteria, I will repeat once more, in case it was
overlooked:

"So, the
bacteria were never found BECAUSE NOBODY WAS LOOKING FOR THEM, and
NOBODY WAS LOOKING FOR THEM BECAUSE THE THEN CURRENT THEORY DID NOT
ADMIT FOR THE PRESENCE OF SUCH A CAUSE. "

That's not the BUMBLEBEE effect, it is the DOG CHASING ITS TAIL
EFFECT.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 7, 7:02 pm, Simon Challands <[email protected]>
wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 7, 3:50 pm, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Let me give, as an example, the discovery of h. pylori bacteria as the
> >> cause of one type of well known stomach ulcer. Now, as you may
> >> already know or can find out from google, when the theory that ANY
> >> stomach ulcers were being caused by bacteria was first proposed, it
> >> was met with opposition, consternation, even derision because ulcers
> >> had been known for centuries and NOBODY had found any bacteria to
> >> explain the ulcer which was,
> >> in the standard medical explanation, written off as due to "stress".
> > You're back to the bumble bee problem again. You're discussing
> > how one establishes a cause and effect relationship. These
> > folks cures are having trouble establishing any effect, much
> > less reaching a conclusion about cause.
>
> To clarify - the ulcer is an effect, the bacteria a cause. Like
> bumblebees, no-one argued that the effect exists. Scientists often
> argue like mad about the causes of an effect, but only of those
> effects they are reasonably confident about observing. Other times
> they'll look to see if they can discover previously unknown effects
> predicted by existing theories, theories which are based on generally
> accepted effects. Homeopathy doesn't fit in with either of those, and
> is unscientific because it hasn't been largely rejected as a result.
> Sometimes accepted explanations are overturned simply because when
> push comes to shove, no evidence can be found for them (the Michelson-
> Morely experiment being the classic example).
>
> --
> Simon Challands

The Michelson-Morlely experiment has been revived in recent years
due to failures in relativity and other anomalies which can only be
explained by the presence of a wave transmission medium, if not the
ether
then something else. New experiments are being devised in this area.

As to the h. pylori bacteria, I will repeat once more, in case it was
overlooked:

"So, the
bacteria were never found BECAUSE NOBODY WAS LOOKING FOR THEM, and
NOBODY WAS LOOKING FOR THEM BECAUSE THE THEN CURRENT THEORY DID NOT
ADMIT FOR THE PRESENCE OF SUCH A CAUSE. "

That's not the BUMBLEBEE effect, it is the DOG CHASING ITS TAIL
EFFECT.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 8, 3:35 am, Neil Pugh <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Simon Challands
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>
>
> >To clarify - the ulcer is an effect, the bacteria a cause. Like
> >bumblebees, no-one argued that the effect exists. Scientists often
> >argue like mad about the causes of an effect, but only of those
> >effects they are reasonably confident about observing. Other times
> >they'll look to see if they can discover previously unknown effects
> >predicted by existing theories, theories which are based on generally
> >accepted effects. Homeopathy doesn't fit in with either of those, and
> >is unscientific because it hasn't been largely rejected as a result.
> >Sometimes accepted explanations are overturned simply because when
> >push comes to shove, no evidence can be found for them (the Michelson-
> >Morely experiment being the classic example).
>
> On the subject of homeopathy "A Day at the Pharmacy" blog contains the
> following priceless story:
>
> http://www.mrhunnybun.com/
>
> "Naughty pharmacists.
>
> My colleague is renowned for being somewhat of a cowboy. There are a lot
> of Homeopathic preparations, all packed in nearly identical little
> plastic pots. Being, like myself, somewhat sceptical and cynical, he
> decided that he would only keep one pot of Homeopathic medication and
> dispense those tablets for every Homeopathic prescription that he had.
>
> His logic was flawless - If any professional colleague reported him he
> could simply say they were mistaken and there was no way that he could
> have been caught. What would they do, assay the tablets which would
> contain not one molecule of active ingredient either way.
>
> This started in 1992 and continued until recently. Hundreds, maybe even
> thousands, of prescriptions presented to him and every single one
> dispensed with Nelsons Rhus Tox. (That's the most diluted one and
> therefore the strongest, right?!)
>
> How many complaints did he have in all these years? Not one. Not one
> patient noticed he was taking a harmless placebo and the doctor never
> realised that her patients remained unmedicated.
>
> So, either Rhus Tox in minuscule quantities is a miracle cure for
> everything, or all homeopathic medications are interchangeable. Hmm,
> that's a tough one."
>
> Regards,
> --
> Neil Pugh

OR, was it no complaints because most everyone that tried
their prescription, not knowing that they had the
wrong prescription, decided that it does not work and went
on to something else?? !!

Dr. Majorie Blackie, in her book "The Patient Not the Cure" gives the
example of a child, given up for dead by an allopathic physician. The
child had purpura and was bleeding from nose, mouth, anus, and was
bruised all over. The doctor asked Dr. Blackie what she would use and
she provided a homeopathic remedy which was administered. The
followed the protocol suggested by Dr. Blackie and the child showed
rapid improvement and recovered. A few days later Dr. Blackie
overheard the allopath explaining the recovery as he pointed out the
child to some medical students. He made NO mention of the homeopathic
treatments to them and spoke of it as one of those odd miracle cures
or spontaneous remissions.

Now, once again, I don't know how I ended up being the defender of
homeopathy
in this group since my big point is to maintain an OPEN mind until all
the FACTS are in. Clever stories either for or against it will not
work.

And, like the h. pylorii discovery, we must await the researcher who
has the insight and the fortitude to see past the objections or the
possibly false claims of positive results and come up with the real
scientific, provable and verifiable explanation one way or the other.

Citizen Jimserac

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 8, 3:35 am, Neil Pugh <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Simon Challands
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>
>
> >To clarify - the ulcer is an effect, the bacteria a cause. Like
> >bumblebees, no-one argued that the effect exists. Scientists often
> >argue like mad about the causes of an effect, but only of those
> >effects they are reasonably confident about observing. Other times
> >they'll look to see if they can discover previously unknown effects
> >predicted by existing theories, theories which are based on generally
> >accepted effects. Homeopathy doesn't fit in with either of those, and
> >is unscientific because it hasn't been largely rejected as a result.
> >Sometimes accepted explanations are overturned simply because when
> >push comes to shove, no evidence can be found for them (the Michelson-
> >Morely experiment being the classic example).
>
> On the subject of homeopathy "A Day at the Pharmacy" blog contains the
> following priceless story:
>
> http://www.mrhunnybun.com/
>
> "Naughty pharmacists.
>
> My colleague is renowned for being somewhat of a cowboy. There are a lot
> of Homeopathic preparations, all packed in nearly identical little
> plastic pots. Being, like myself, somewhat sceptical and cynical, he
> decided that he would only keep one pot of Homeopathic medication and
> dispense those tablets for every Homeopathic prescription that he had.
>
> His logic was flawless - If any professional colleague reported him he
> could simply say they were mistaken and there was no way that he could
> have been caught. What would they do, assay the tablets which would
> contain not one molecule of active ingredient either way.
>
> This started in 1992 and continued until recently. Hundreds, maybe even
> thousands, of prescriptions presented to him and every single one
> dispensed with Nelsons Rhus Tox. (That's the most diluted one and
> therefore the strongest, right?!)
>
> How many complaints did he have in all these years? Not one. Not one
> patient noticed he was taking a harmless placebo and the doctor never
> realised that her patients remained unmedicated.
>
> So, either Rhus Tox in minuscule quantities is a miracle cure for
> everything, or all homeopathic medications are interchangeable. Hmm,
> that's a tough one."
>
> Regards,
> --
> Neil Pugh

OR, was it no complaints because most everyone that tried
their prescription, not knowing that they had the
wrong prescription, decided that it does not work and went
on to something else?? !!

Dr. Majorie Blackie, in her book "The Patient Not the Cure" gives the
example of a child, given up for dead by an allopathic physician. The
child had purpura and was bleeding from nose, mouth, anus, and was
bruised all over. The doctor asked Dr. Blackie what she would use and
she provided a homeopathic remedy which was administered. The
followed the protocol suggested by Dr. Blackie and the child showed
rapid improvement and recovered. A few days later Dr. Blackie
overheard the allopath explaining the recovery as he pointed out the
child to some medical students. He made NO mention of the homeopathic
treatments to them and spoke of it as one of those odd miracle cures
or spontaneous remissions.

Now, once again, I don't know how I ended up being the defender of
homeopathy
in this group since my big point is to maintain an OPEN mind until all
the FACTS are in. Clever stories either for or against it will not
work.

And, like the h. pylorii discovery, we must await the researcher who
has the insight and the fortitude to see past the objections or the
possibly false claims of positive results and come up with the real
scientific, provable and verifiable explanation one way or the other.

Citizen Jimserac

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 8, 3:35 am, Neil Pugh <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Simon Challands
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>
>
> >To clarify - the ulcer is an effect, the bacteria a cause. Like
> >bumblebees, no-one argued that the effect exists. Scientists often
> >argue like mad about the causes of an effect, but only of those
> >effects they are reasonably confident about observing. Other times
> >they'll look to see if they can discover previously unknown effects
> >predicted by existing theories, theories which are based on generally
> >accepted effects. Homeopathy doesn't fit in with either of those, and
> >is unscientific because it hasn't been largely rejected as a result.
> >Sometimes accepted explanations are overturned simply because when
> >push comes to shove, no evidence can be found for them (the Michelson-
> >Morely experiment being the classic example).
>
> On the subject of homeopathy "A Day at the Pharmacy" blog contains the
> following priceless story:
>
> http://www.mrhunnybun.com/
>
> "Naughty pharmacists.
>
> My colleague is renowned for being somewhat of a cowboy. There are a lot
> of Homeopathic preparations, all packed in nearly identical little
> plastic pots. Being, like myself, somewhat sceptical and cynical, he
> decided that he would only keep one pot of Homeopathic medication and
> dispense those tablets for every Homeopathic prescription that he had.
>
> His logic was flawless - If any professional colleague reported him he
> could simply say they were mistaken and there was no way that he could
> have been caught. What would they do, assay the tablets which would
> contain not one molecule of active ingredient either way.
>
> This started in 1992 and continued until recently. Hundreds, maybe even
> thousands, of prescriptions presented to him and every single one
> dispensed with Nelsons Rhus Tox. (That's the most diluted one and
> therefore the strongest, right?!)
>
> How many complaints did he have in all these years? Not one. Not one
> patient noticed he was taking a harmless placebo and the doctor never
> realised that her patients remained unmedicated.
>
> So, either Rhus Tox in minuscule quantities is a miracle cure for
> everything, or all homeopathic medications are interchangeable. Hmm,
> that's a tough one."
>
> Regards,
> --
> Neil Pugh

OR, was it no complaints because most everyone that tried
their prescription, not knowing that they had the
wrong prescription, decided that it does not work and went
on to something else?? !!

Dr. Majorie Blackie, in her book "The Patient Not the Cure" gives the
example of a child, given up for dead by an allopathic physician. The
child had purpura and was bleeding from nose, mouth, anus, and was
bruised all over. The doctor asked Dr. Blackie what she would use and
she provided a homeopathic remedy which was administered. The
followed the protocol suggested by Dr. Blackie and the child showed
rapid improvement and recovered. A few days later Dr. Blackie
overheard the allopath explaining the recovery as he pointed out the
child to some medical students. He made NO mention of the homeopathic
treatments to them and spoke of it as one of those odd miracle cures
or spontaneous remissions.

Now, once again, I don't know how I ended up being the defender of
homeopathy
in this group since my big point is to maintain an OPEN mind until all
the FACTS are in. Clever stories either for or against it will not
work.

And, like the h. pylorii discovery, we must await the researcher who
has the insight and the fortitude to see past the objections or the
possibly false claims of positive results and come up with the real
scientific, provable and verifiable explanation one way or the other.

Citizen Jimserac

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 8, 3:35 am, Neil Pugh <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Simon Challands
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>
>
> >To clarify - the ulcer is an effect, the bacteria a cause. Like
> >bumblebees, no-one argued that the effect exists. Scientists often
> >argue like mad about the causes of an effect, but only of those
> >effects they are reasonably confident about observing. Other times
> >they'll look to see if they can discover previously unknown effects
> >predicted by existing theories, theories which are based on generally
> >accepted effects. Homeopathy doesn't fit in with either of those, and
> >is unscientific because it hasn't been largely rejected as a result.
> >Sometimes accepted explanations are overturned simply because when
> >push comes to shove, no evidence can be found for them (the Michelson-
> >Morely experiment being the classic example).
>
> On the subject of homeopathy "A Day at the Pharmacy" blog contains the
> following priceless story:
>
> http://www.mrhunnybun.com/
>
> "Naughty pharmacists.
>
> My colleague is renowned for being somewhat of a cowboy. There are a lot
> of Homeopathic preparations, all packed in nearly identical little
> plastic pots. Being, like myself, somewhat sceptical and cynical, he
> decided that he would only keep one pot of Homeopathic medication and
> dispense those tablets for every Homeopathic prescription that he had.
>
> His logic was flawless - If any professional colleague reported him he
> could simply say they were mistaken and there was no way that he could
> have been caught. What would they do, assay the tablets which would
> contain not one molecule of active ingredient either way.
>
> This started in 1992 and continued until recently. Hundreds, maybe even
> thousands, of prescriptions presented to him and every single one
> dispensed with Nelsons Rhus Tox. (That's the most diluted one and
> therefore the strongest, right?!)
>
> How many complaints did he have in all these years? Not one. Not one
> patient noticed he was taking a harmless placebo and the doctor never
> realised that her patients remained unmedicated.
>
> So, either Rhus Tox in minuscule quantities is a miracle cure for
> everything, or all homeopathic medications are interchangeable. Hmm,
> that's a tough one."
>
> Regards,
> --
> Neil Pugh

OR, was it no complaints because most everyone that tried
their prescription, not knowing that they had the
wrong prescription, decided that it does not work and went
on to something else?? !!

Dr. Majorie Blackie, in her book "The Patient Not the Cure" gives the
example of a child, given up for dead by an allopathic physician. The
child had purpura and was bleeding from nose, mouth, anus, and was
bruised all over. The doctor asked Dr. Blackie what she would use and
she provided a homeopathic remedy which was administered. The
followed the protocol suggested by Dr. Blackie and the child showed
rapid improvement and recovered. A few days later Dr. Blackie
overheard the allopath explaining the recovery as he pointed out the
child to some medical students. He made NO mention of the homeopathic
treatments to them and spoke of it as one of those odd miracle cures
or spontaneous remissions.

Now, once again, I don't know how I ended up being the defender of
homeopathy
in this group since my big point is to maintain an OPEN mind until all
the FACTS are in. Clever stories either for or against it will not
work.

And, like the h. pylorii discovery, we must await the researcher who
has the insight and the fortitude to see past the objections or the
possibly false claims of positive results and come up with the real
scientific, provable and verifiable explanation one way or the other.

Citizen Jimserac

Citizen Jimserac
 
In message <[email protected]>,
Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> writes
>
>Now, once again, I don't know how I ended up being the defender of
>homeopathy
>in this group since my big point is to maintain an OPEN mind until all
>the FACTS are in. Clever stories either for or against it will not
>work.
>

No offence intended, Citizen, but please don't bother trying to convince
me on the subject of homeopathy. I made my mind up long ago, it's an
example of the worst sort of discredited nonsense that was ever
invented.

I rather liked the clever story!

Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
 
In message <[email protected]>,
Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> writes
>
>Now, once again, I don't know how I ended up being the defender of
>homeopathy
>in this group since my big point is to maintain an OPEN mind until all
>the FACTS are in. Clever stories either for or against it will not
>work.
>

No offence intended, Citizen, but please don't bother trying to convince
me on the subject of homeopathy. I made my mind up long ago, it's an
example of the worst sort of discredited nonsense that was ever
invented.

I rather liked the clever story!

Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back