Calling all wlaking Chiropracters, Osteopaths, Physiotherapists and Doctors



On Nov 9, 5:17 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:

> This is silly: you've said already that all the money comes >from Big Pharm, and now you're saying practically none of it >does. You can't have it both ways!

All the advertising and marketing money.


> > In this regard, I hope that you have already read the award winning
> > book by Dr. Maria Angell M.D., a former editor in chief of the
> > prestigious New England Medical Journal, entitled "The Truth About the
> > Drug Companies" which gives some overview of the astonishing scope and
> > depth of their depredations and deceptions.


> I'm not going to claim Big Pharm are Nice People any more than I'll do
> the same for oil companies (I trained as a geophysicist, but couldn't
> face working in oil or mining), but the point is, as you say, they're
> out to make money. And if homeopathy can be shown to work then there is
> money in it. It might not use the same model as other money making from
> drugs, but money is money and the accountants don't really care if it's
> made from tincture of St. John's Wort or Prozac.

True. And apparently the Big Farm folks will continue to use their
preferred double blind testing methods, even after 27,000 people just
won a lawsuit against Merc for damages from Vioxx. The damage award
is an incredible 5 BILLION dollars. Say, you're right , there IS some
really BIG money floating around in this industry!!!

Check out Dr. Angell's book, it is a real eye opener.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 9, 5:17 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:

> This is silly: you've said already that all the money comes >from Big Pharm, and now you're saying practically none of it >does. You can't have it both ways!

All the advertising and marketing money.


> > In this regard, I hope that you have already read the award winning
> > book by Dr. Maria Angell M.D., a former editor in chief of the
> > prestigious New England Medical Journal, entitled "The Truth About the
> > Drug Companies" which gives some overview of the astonishing scope and
> > depth of their depredations and deceptions.


> I'm not going to claim Big Pharm are Nice People any more than I'll do
> the same for oil companies (I trained as a geophysicist, but couldn't
> face working in oil or mining), but the point is, as you say, they're
> out to make money. And if homeopathy can be shown to work then there is
> money in it. It might not use the same model as other money making from
> drugs, but money is money and the accountants don't really care if it's
> made from tincture of St. John's Wort or Prozac.

True. And apparently the Big Farm folks will continue to use their
preferred double blind testing methods, even after 27,000 people just
won a lawsuit against Merc for damages from Vioxx. The damage award
is an incredible 5 BILLION dollars. Say, you're right , there IS some
really BIG money floating around in this industry!!!

Check out Dr. Angell's book, it is a real eye opener.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 9, 5:17 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:

> This is silly: you've said already that all the money comes >from Big Pharm, and now you're saying practically none of it >does. You can't have it both ways!

All the advertising and marketing money.


> > In this regard, I hope that you have already read the award winning
> > book by Dr. Maria Angell M.D., a former editor in chief of the
> > prestigious New England Medical Journal, entitled "The Truth About the
> > Drug Companies" which gives some overview of the astonishing scope and
> > depth of their depredations and deceptions.


> I'm not going to claim Big Pharm are Nice People any more than I'll do
> the same for oil companies (I trained as a geophysicist, but couldn't
> face working in oil or mining), but the point is, as you say, they're
> out to make money. And if homeopathy can be shown to work then there is
> money in it. It might not use the same model as other money making from
> drugs, but money is money and the accountants don't really care if it's
> made from tincture of St. John's Wort or Prozac.

True. And apparently the Big Farm folks will continue to use their
preferred double blind testing methods, even after 27,000 people just
won a lawsuit against Merc for damages from Vioxx. The damage award
is an incredible 5 BILLION dollars. Say, you're right , there IS some
really BIG money floating around in this industry!!!

Check out Dr. Angell's book, it is a real eye opener.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 9, 9:41 am, bobrayner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov, 12:23, CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 3:51 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > CitizenJimseracwrote:
> > > > Does "placebo" mean the patient only THINKS they got better
> > > > or does it mean they did get better but science does
> > > > not know why or does it mean that they got better
> > > > somehow (unknown to science) but it might
> > > > or might not have been from the treatment?
>
> > > Potentially any of those.
>
> > > It's long been observed that a positive attitude appears to aid
> > > recovery, and it's entirely likely that given a "wonder pill" someone's
> > > positive attitude in thinking it will help them, in itself helps them.
>
> > > In a trial a placebo is something that is practically certain to not do
> > > anything for the condition. So a sugar pill rather than a drug pill, or
> > > a spoonful of syrup rather than a spoonful of medicine, for a cancer
> > > condition that doesn't responding to syrup or sugar.
>
> > > 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/
>
> > I see! Then those who peremptorily dismissHomeopathyas "placebo"
> > effect are just as unscientific as some of the supporters of it.
>
> > Interesting.
>
> Why?
>
> If a homeopathic treatment performs no better than other placebos in
> tests, and if there's no good reason to believe that the active
> ingredient will help (either because it's been massively diluted, or
> because it's a silly example of like-cures-like thinking), then
> "placebo" is a perfectly good description of homeopathic treatment.

Nobody seems to know exactly WHAT placebo is, that's part of the
problem, it seems to me, in figuring out if homeopathy is something
real or complete nonsense.

It's like writing off those few lucky people that recover from "fatal"
cancer or "hiv" as "spontaneous remission". What the hell is
"spontaneous remission" supposed to be exactly? See??

Getting back to placebo, is it the expectation of being cured but the
curative agent cannot be identified. Does it involve the activation
of unknown curative pheonomena? Does it inolve a homeopathic or other
remedy as a catalyst to activate it but in which the remedy otherwise
plays no part??
Does it involve the most fundamental reorganization of what exactly is
our definition of "cure", "patient", "disease" as the homoepaths have
proposed.

See?? Nobody knows, and part of the trick in deciding on this is we
must wait for more research, for breakthroughs at a fundamental level.

See those people back in the 1960's that were having part of their
stomachs cut out to cure their ulcers? Well, we now know that for
some of them there was actually some little bacteria causing the
problem -> but NOBODY was looking for that because the theory of that
time has posited "stress" and "diet" as the principle causitive agents
and that theory did not admit of the ridiculous possibility of
bacteria.

So, I can't tell one way or another about Homeopathy and
.... neither can YOU or anyone else... yet. EXCEPT, from those that
have been treated by it which either produced some results or did
absolutely nothing which then raises the questions of how were the
results produced or not produced which is then the subject of
research.

I'm neither a "believer" nor "dis-believer".

I'M AN OBSERVER.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 9, 9:41 am, bobrayner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov, 12:23, CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 3:51 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > CitizenJimseracwrote:
> > > > Does "placebo" mean the patient only THINKS they got better
> > > > or does it mean they did get better but science does
> > > > not know why or does it mean that they got better
> > > > somehow (unknown to science) but it might
> > > > or might not have been from the treatment?
>
> > > Potentially any of those.
>
> > > It's long been observed that a positive attitude appears to aid
> > > recovery, and it's entirely likely that given a "wonder pill" someone's
> > > positive attitude in thinking it will help them, in itself helps them.
>
> > > In a trial a placebo is something that is practically certain to not do
> > > anything for the condition. So a sugar pill rather than a drug pill, or
> > > a spoonful of syrup rather than a spoonful of medicine, for a cancer
> > > condition that doesn't responding to syrup or sugar.
>
> > > 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/
>
> > I see! Then those who peremptorily dismissHomeopathyas "placebo"
> > effect are just as unscientific as some of the supporters of it.
>
> > Interesting.
>
> Why?
>
> If a homeopathic treatment performs no better than other placebos in
> tests, and if there's no good reason to believe that the active
> ingredient will help (either because it's been massively diluted, or
> because it's a silly example of like-cures-like thinking), then
> "placebo" is a perfectly good description of homeopathic treatment.

Nobody seems to know exactly WHAT placebo is, that's part of the
problem, it seems to me, in figuring out if homeopathy is something
real or complete nonsense.

It's like writing off those few lucky people that recover from "fatal"
cancer or "hiv" as "spontaneous remission". What the hell is
"spontaneous remission" supposed to be exactly? See??

Getting back to placebo, is it the expectation of being cured but the
curative agent cannot be identified. Does it involve the activation
of unknown curative pheonomena? Does it inolve a homeopathic or other
remedy as a catalyst to activate it but in which the remedy otherwise
plays no part??
Does it involve the most fundamental reorganization of what exactly is
our definition of "cure", "patient", "disease" as the homoepaths have
proposed.

See?? Nobody knows, and part of the trick in deciding on this is we
must wait for more research, for breakthroughs at a fundamental level.

See those people back in the 1960's that were having part of their
stomachs cut out to cure their ulcers? Well, we now know that for
some of them there was actually some little bacteria causing the
problem -> but NOBODY was looking for that because the theory of that
time has posited "stress" and "diet" as the principle causitive agents
and that theory did not admit of the ridiculous possibility of
bacteria.

So, I can't tell one way or another about Homeopathy and
.... neither can YOU or anyone else... yet. EXCEPT, from those that
have been treated by it which either produced some results or did
absolutely nothing which then raises the questions of how were the
results produced or not produced which is then the subject of
research.

I'm neither a "believer" nor "dis-believer".

I'M AN OBSERVER.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 9, 9:41 am, bobrayner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov, 12:23, CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 3:51 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > CitizenJimseracwrote:
> > > > Does "placebo" mean the patient only THINKS they got better
> > > > or does it mean they did get better but science does
> > > > not know why or does it mean that they got better
> > > > somehow (unknown to science) but it might
> > > > or might not have been from the treatment?
>
> > > Potentially any of those.
>
> > > It's long been observed that a positive attitude appears to aid
> > > recovery, and it's entirely likely that given a "wonder pill" someone's
> > > positive attitude in thinking it will help them, in itself helps them.
>
> > > In a trial a placebo is something that is practically certain to not do
> > > anything for the condition. So a sugar pill rather than a drug pill, or
> > > a spoonful of syrup rather than a spoonful of medicine, for a cancer
> > > condition that doesn't responding to syrup or sugar.
>
> > > 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/
>
> > I see! Then those who peremptorily dismissHomeopathyas "placebo"
> > effect are just as unscientific as some of the supporters of it.
>
> > Interesting.
>
> Why?
>
> If a homeopathic treatment performs no better than other placebos in
> tests, and if there's no good reason to believe that the active
> ingredient will help (either because it's been massively diluted, or
> because it's a silly example of like-cures-like thinking), then
> "placebo" is a perfectly good description of homeopathic treatment.

Nobody seems to know exactly WHAT placebo is, that's part of the
problem, it seems to me, in figuring out if homeopathy is something
real or complete nonsense.

It's like writing off those few lucky people that recover from "fatal"
cancer or "hiv" as "spontaneous remission". What the hell is
"spontaneous remission" supposed to be exactly? See??

Getting back to placebo, is it the expectation of being cured but the
curative agent cannot be identified. Does it involve the activation
of unknown curative pheonomena? Does it inolve a homeopathic or other
remedy as a catalyst to activate it but in which the remedy otherwise
plays no part??
Does it involve the most fundamental reorganization of what exactly is
our definition of "cure", "patient", "disease" as the homoepaths have
proposed.

See?? Nobody knows, and part of the trick in deciding on this is we
must wait for more research, for breakthroughs at a fundamental level.

See those people back in the 1960's that were having part of their
stomachs cut out to cure their ulcers? Well, we now know that for
some of them there was actually some little bacteria causing the
problem -> but NOBODY was looking for that because the theory of that
time has posited "stress" and "diet" as the principle causitive agents
and that theory did not admit of the ridiculous possibility of
bacteria.

So, I can't tell one way or another about Homeopathy and
.... neither can YOU or anyone else... yet. EXCEPT, from those that
have been treated by it which either produced some results or did
absolutely nothing which then raises the questions of how were the
results produced or not produced which is then the subject of
research.

I'm neither a "believer" nor "dis-believer".

I'M AN OBSERVER.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 9, 9:41 am, bobrayner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov, 12:23, CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 3:51 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > CitizenJimseracwrote:
> > > > Does "placebo" mean the patient only THINKS they got better
> > > > or does it mean they did get better but science does
> > > > not know why or does it mean that they got better
> > > > somehow (unknown to science) but it might
> > > > or might not have been from the treatment?
>
> > > Potentially any of those.
>
> > > It's long been observed that a positive attitude appears to aid
> > > recovery, and it's entirely likely that given a "wonder pill" someone's
> > > positive attitude in thinking it will help them, in itself helps them.
>
> > > In a trial a placebo is something that is practically certain to not do
> > > anything for the condition. So a sugar pill rather than a drug pill, or
> > > a spoonful of syrup rather than a spoonful of medicine, for a cancer
> > > condition that doesn't responding to syrup or sugar.
>
> > > 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/
>
> > I see! Then those who peremptorily dismissHomeopathyas "placebo"
> > effect are just as unscientific as some of the supporters of it.
>
> > Interesting.
>
> Why?
>
> If a homeopathic treatment performs no better than other placebos in
> tests, and if there's no good reason to believe that the active
> ingredient will help (either because it's been massively diluted, or
> because it's a silly example of like-cures-like thinking), then
> "placebo" is a perfectly good description of homeopathic treatment.

Nobody seems to know exactly WHAT placebo is, that's part of the
problem, it seems to me, in figuring out if homeopathy is something
real or complete nonsense.

It's like writing off those few lucky people that recover from "fatal"
cancer or "hiv" as "spontaneous remission". What the hell is
"spontaneous remission" supposed to be exactly? See??

Getting back to placebo, is it the expectation of being cured but the
curative agent cannot be identified. Does it involve the activation
of unknown curative pheonomena? Does it inolve a homeopathic or other
remedy as a catalyst to activate it but in which the remedy otherwise
plays no part??
Does it involve the most fundamental reorganization of what exactly is
our definition of "cure", "patient", "disease" as the homoepaths have
proposed.

See?? Nobody knows, and part of the trick in deciding on this is we
must wait for more research, for breakthroughs at a fundamental level.

See those people back in the 1960's that were having part of their
stomachs cut out to cure their ulcers? Well, we now know that for
some of them there was actually some little bacteria causing the
problem -> but NOBODY was looking for that because the theory of that
time has posited "stress" and "diet" as the principle causitive agents
and that theory did not admit of the ridiculous possibility of
bacteria.

So, I can't tell one way or another about Homeopathy and
.... neither can YOU or anyone else... yet. EXCEPT, from those that
have been treated by it which either produced some results or did
absolutely nothing which then raises the questions of how were the
results produced or not produced which is then the subject of
research.

I'm neither a "believer" nor "dis-believer".

I'M AN OBSERVER.

Citizen Jimserac
 
In message <[email protected]>,
Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> writes
>> but hey!
>> he stands a chance of being a million bucks better off.
>>
>
>I'd be interested to see if they can even agree on a testing
>procedure.
>
>Citizen Jimserac
>

Me too.......

Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
 
In message <[email protected]>,
Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> writes
>> but hey!
>> he stands a chance of being a million bucks better off.
>>
>
>I'd be interested to see if they can even agree on a testing
>procedure.
>
>Citizen Jimserac
>

Me too.......

Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
 
In message <[email protected]>,
Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> writes
>> but hey!
>> he stands a chance of being a million bucks better off.
>>
>
>I'd be interested to see if they can even agree on a testing
>procedure.
>
>Citizen Jimserac
>

Me too.......

Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
 
In message <[email protected]>,
Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> writes
>> but hey!
>> he stands a chance of being a million bucks better off.
>>
>
>I'd be interested to see if they can even agree on a testing
>procedure.
>
>Citizen Jimserac
>

Me too.......

Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
 
On Nov 9, 10:40 am, Neil <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>,
> CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> writes
>
> >> but hey!
> >> he stands a chance of being a million bucks better off.
>
> >I'd be interested to see if they can even agree on a testing
> >procedure.
>
> >CitizenJimserac
>
> Me too.......
>
> Regards,
> --
> Neil Pugh

Ha! This Randi think is absolutely fascinating -> check out this link
for a brief history of the Homeopathy "challenge".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

Here is the really interesting thing. You know that those blokes
doing the testing are not charlatans and they really believe that they
got positive test results when they were working by themselves. Now,
here is the beauty part -> when Randi comes to watch the experiment
and the researchers DO NOT KNOW which vial has the homeopathic remedy
under test and which has the placebo, the test fails.

Now that, in itself, CANNOT be taken to be a failure of homeopathy
itself because of the presumed honesty of the researchers. In fact,
if you read the description at the link
I gave above, one of the researchers was quite skeptical until she
repeated one of the experiments told to her by one of the researchers
and herself got positive results.

All we've got so far is that the positive tests are not REPEATABLE.

Now comes the interesting bit. Assuming, again, that the researchers
are not charlatans and are honestly pursuing their research and
honestly reporting what appears to be positive results we are again
pushed right to the fringes of known science and beyond. We can only
conlcude some sort of interaction between the mind of the researchers,
Randi's presence and the homeopathic substances. BUT, is this not at
the center of what the word, "placebo" is all about.

I UNDERSTAND this is all speculation but this has been my point all
along -> why should I write off as charlatinism the apparent positive
results of honest researchers in one set of circumstances and the
totally negative results in another set.

Perhaps an investigation of the exact conditions under which the tests
succeed and under which they fail miserably might produce some
information on which to base a conclusion as to what exactly is going
on.

The homeopathic substances themselves could be acting as mere
catalysts or it might very well be that this is all placebo and they
do nothing at all in a physical sense in which case the mechanism of
"placebo" becomes important for medicine
if it is not so already.

Again, I would hope that research of sufficient detail and repeatable
could be established to decide one way or the other. Which comes back
to more research needed.

Is this not exactly the same as the so-called cold fusion experiments
of the 90's where the occasional apparent successes can sometimes be
repeated and sometimes not.
Are we to believe that ALL of the cold fusion researchers, some of
them quite eminent names in science are charlatans too?

Thanks again for a VERY interesting link.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 9, 10:40 am, Neil <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>,
> CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> writes
>
> >> but hey!
> >> he stands a chance of being a million bucks better off.
>
> >I'd be interested to see if they can even agree on a testing
> >procedure.
>
> >CitizenJimserac
>
> Me too.......
>
> Regards,
> --
> Neil Pugh

Ha! This Randi think is absolutely fascinating -> check out this link
for a brief history of the Homeopathy "challenge".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

Here is the really interesting thing. You know that those blokes
doing the testing are not charlatans and they really believe that they
got positive test results when they were working by themselves. Now,
here is the beauty part -> when Randi comes to watch the experiment
and the researchers DO NOT KNOW which vial has the homeopathic remedy
under test and which has the placebo, the test fails.

Now that, in itself, CANNOT be taken to be a failure of homeopathy
itself because of the presumed honesty of the researchers. In fact,
if you read the description at the link
I gave above, one of the researchers was quite skeptical until she
repeated one of the experiments told to her by one of the researchers
and herself got positive results.

All we've got so far is that the positive tests are not REPEATABLE.

Now comes the interesting bit. Assuming, again, that the researchers
are not charlatans and are honestly pursuing their research and
honestly reporting what appears to be positive results we are again
pushed right to the fringes of known science and beyond. We can only
conlcude some sort of interaction between the mind of the researchers,
Randi's presence and the homeopathic substances. BUT, is this not at
the center of what the word, "placebo" is all about.

I UNDERSTAND this is all speculation but this has been my point all
along -> why should I write off as charlatinism the apparent positive
results of honest researchers in one set of circumstances and the
totally negative results in another set.

Perhaps an investigation of the exact conditions under which the tests
succeed and under which they fail miserably might produce some
information on which to base a conclusion as to what exactly is going
on.

The homeopathic substances themselves could be acting as mere
catalysts or it might very well be that this is all placebo and they
do nothing at all in a physical sense in which case the mechanism of
"placebo" becomes important for medicine
if it is not so already.

Again, I would hope that research of sufficient detail and repeatable
could be established to decide one way or the other. Which comes back
to more research needed.

Is this not exactly the same as the so-called cold fusion experiments
of the 90's where the occasional apparent successes can sometimes be
repeated and sometimes not.
Are we to believe that ALL of the cold fusion researchers, some of
them quite eminent names in science are charlatans too?

Thanks again for a VERY interesting link.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 9, 10:40 am, Neil <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>,
> CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> writes
>
> >> but hey!
> >> he stands a chance of being a million bucks better off.
>
> >I'd be interested to see if they can even agree on a testing
> >procedure.
>
> >CitizenJimserac
>
> Me too.......
>
> Regards,
> --
> Neil Pugh

Ha! This Randi think is absolutely fascinating -> check out this link
for a brief history of the Homeopathy "challenge".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

Here is the really interesting thing. You know that those blokes
doing the testing are not charlatans and they really believe that they
got positive test results when they were working by themselves. Now,
here is the beauty part -> when Randi comes to watch the experiment
and the researchers DO NOT KNOW which vial has the homeopathic remedy
under test and which has the placebo, the test fails.

Now that, in itself, CANNOT be taken to be a failure of homeopathy
itself because of the presumed honesty of the researchers. In fact,
if you read the description at the link
I gave above, one of the researchers was quite skeptical until she
repeated one of the experiments told to her by one of the researchers
and herself got positive results.

All we've got so far is that the positive tests are not REPEATABLE.

Now comes the interesting bit. Assuming, again, that the researchers
are not charlatans and are honestly pursuing their research and
honestly reporting what appears to be positive results we are again
pushed right to the fringes of known science and beyond. We can only
conlcude some sort of interaction between the mind of the researchers,
Randi's presence and the homeopathic substances. BUT, is this not at
the center of what the word, "placebo" is all about.

I UNDERSTAND this is all speculation but this has been my point all
along -> why should I write off as charlatinism the apparent positive
results of honest researchers in one set of circumstances and the
totally negative results in another set.

Perhaps an investigation of the exact conditions under which the tests
succeed and under which they fail miserably might produce some
information on which to base a conclusion as to what exactly is going
on.

The homeopathic substances themselves could be acting as mere
catalysts or it might very well be that this is all placebo and they
do nothing at all in a physical sense in which case the mechanism of
"placebo" becomes important for medicine
if it is not so already.

Again, I would hope that research of sufficient detail and repeatable
could be established to decide one way or the other. Which comes back
to more research needed.

Is this not exactly the same as the so-called cold fusion experiments
of the 90's where the occasional apparent successes can sometimes be
repeated and sometimes not.
Are we to believe that ALL of the cold fusion researchers, some of
them quite eminent names in science are charlatans too?

Thanks again for a VERY interesting link.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 9, 10:40 am, Neil <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>,
> CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> writes
>
> >> but hey!
> >> he stands a chance of being a million bucks better off.
>
> >I'd be interested to see if they can even agree on a testing
> >procedure.
>
> >CitizenJimserac
>
> Me too.......
>
> Regards,
> --
> Neil Pugh

Ha! This Randi think is absolutely fascinating -> check out this link
for a brief history of the Homeopathy "challenge".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

Here is the really interesting thing. You know that those blokes
doing the testing are not charlatans and they really believe that they
got positive test results when they were working by themselves. Now,
here is the beauty part -> when Randi comes to watch the experiment
and the researchers DO NOT KNOW which vial has the homeopathic remedy
under test and which has the placebo, the test fails.

Now that, in itself, CANNOT be taken to be a failure of homeopathy
itself because of the presumed honesty of the researchers. In fact,
if you read the description at the link
I gave above, one of the researchers was quite skeptical until she
repeated one of the experiments told to her by one of the researchers
and herself got positive results.

All we've got so far is that the positive tests are not REPEATABLE.

Now comes the interesting bit. Assuming, again, that the researchers
are not charlatans and are honestly pursuing their research and
honestly reporting what appears to be positive results we are again
pushed right to the fringes of known science and beyond. We can only
conlcude some sort of interaction between the mind of the researchers,
Randi's presence and the homeopathic substances. BUT, is this not at
the center of what the word, "placebo" is all about.

I UNDERSTAND this is all speculation but this has been my point all
along -> why should I write off as charlatinism the apparent positive
results of honest researchers in one set of circumstances and the
totally negative results in another set.

Perhaps an investigation of the exact conditions under which the tests
succeed and under which they fail miserably might produce some
information on which to base a conclusion as to what exactly is going
on.

The homeopathic substances themselves could be acting as mere
catalysts or it might very well be that this is all placebo and they
do nothing at all in a physical sense in which case the mechanism of
"placebo" becomes important for medicine
if it is not so already.

Again, I would hope that research of sufficient detail and repeatable
could be established to decide one way or the other. Which comes back
to more research needed.

Is this not exactly the same as the so-called cold fusion experiments
of the 90's where the occasional apparent successes can sometimes be
repeated and sometimes not.
Are we to believe that ALL of the cold fusion researchers, some of
them quite eminent names in science are charlatans too?

Thanks again for a VERY interesting link.

Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 9, 10:26 am, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:41 am, bobrayner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
[snip]
> Nobody seems to know exactly WHAT placebo is, that's part of the
> problem, it seems to me, in figuring out if homeopathy is something
> real or complete nonsense.

If homeopathy has no greater effect than a placebo, doesn't that
mean there is nothing to it?

[snip]
> Getting back to placebo, is it the expectation of being cured but the
> curative agent cannot be identified. Does it involve the activation
> of unknown curative pheonomena? Does it inolve a homeopathic or other
> remedy as a catalyst to activate it but in which the remedy otherwise
> plays no part??
[snip]

Typically, if the ingredient does no better than either doing
nothing,
or giving a placebo, the conclusion would be that the ingredient does
nothing. However, you seem to be seeking new definitions of
"working".

> Does it involve the most fundamental reorganization of what exactly is
> our definition of "cure", "patient", "disease" as the homoepaths have
> proposed.

It seems the utmost act of desperation to try to redefine words to
have a point at all. It was my observation about acupuncture in
the origin of this subthread. There is a tendency to use words with
precise meanings, but with new or nontechnical meanings in
technical contexts.
 
On Nov 9, 10:26 am, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:41 am, bobrayner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
[snip]
> Nobody seems to know exactly WHAT placebo is, that's part of the
> problem, it seems to me, in figuring out if homeopathy is something
> real or complete nonsense.

If homeopathy has no greater effect than a placebo, doesn't that
mean there is nothing to it?

[snip]
> Getting back to placebo, is it the expectation of being cured but the
> curative agent cannot be identified. Does it involve the activation
> of unknown curative pheonomena? Does it inolve a homeopathic or other
> remedy as a catalyst to activate it but in which the remedy otherwise
> plays no part??
[snip]

Typically, if the ingredient does no better than either doing
nothing,
or giving a placebo, the conclusion would be that the ingredient does
nothing. However, you seem to be seeking new definitions of
"working".

> Does it involve the most fundamental reorganization of what exactly is
> our definition of "cure", "patient", "disease" as the homoepaths have
> proposed.

It seems the utmost act of desperation to try to redefine words to
have a point at all. It was my observation about acupuncture in
the origin of this subthread. There is a tendency to use words with
precise meanings, but with new or nontechnical meanings in
technical contexts.
 
On Nov 9, 10:26 am, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:41 am, bobrayner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
[snip]
> Nobody seems to know exactly WHAT placebo is, that's part of the
> problem, it seems to me, in figuring out if homeopathy is something
> real or complete nonsense.

If homeopathy has no greater effect than a placebo, doesn't that
mean there is nothing to it?

[snip]
> Getting back to placebo, is it the expectation of being cured but the
> curative agent cannot be identified. Does it involve the activation
> of unknown curative pheonomena? Does it inolve a homeopathic or other
> remedy as a catalyst to activate it but in which the remedy otherwise
> plays no part??
[snip]

Typically, if the ingredient does no better than either doing
nothing,
or giving a placebo, the conclusion would be that the ingredient does
nothing. However, you seem to be seeking new definitions of
"working".

> Does it involve the most fundamental reorganization of what exactly is
> our definition of "cure", "patient", "disease" as the homoepaths have
> proposed.

It seems the utmost act of desperation to try to redefine words to
have a point at all. It was my observation about acupuncture in
the origin of this subthread. There is a tendency to use words with
precise meanings, but with new or nontechnical meanings in
technical contexts.
 
On Nov 9, 10:26 am, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:41 am, bobrayner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
[snip]
> Nobody seems to know exactly WHAT placebo is, that's part of the
> problem, it seems to me, in figuring out if homeopathy is something
> real or complete nonsense.

If homeopathy has no greater effect than a placebo, doesn't that
mean there is nothing to it?

[snip]
> Getting back to placebo, is it the expectation of being cured but the
> curative agent cannot be identified. Does it involve the activation
> of unknown curative pheonomena? Does it inolve a homeopathic or other
> remedy as a catalyst to activate it but in which the remedy otherwise
> plays no part??
[snip]

Typically, if the ingredient does no better than either doing
nothing,
or giving a placebo, the conclusion would be that the ingredient does
nothing. However, you seem to be seeking new definitions of
"working".

> Does it involve the most fundamental reorganization of what exactly is
> our definition of "cure", "patient", "disease" as the homoepaths have
> proposed.

It seems the utmost act of desperation to try to redefine words to
have a point at all. It was my observation about acupuncture in
the origin of this subthread. There is a tendency to use words with
precise meanings, but with new or nontechnical meanings in
technical contexts.
 
On Nov 9, 11:54 am, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 10:26 am, CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 9:41 am, bobrayner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Nobody seems to know exactly WHAT placebo is, that's part of the
> > problem, it seems to me, in figuring out if homeopathy is something
> > real or complete nonsense.
>
> If homeopathy has no greater effect than a placebo, doesn't that
> mean there is nothing to it?

Logically NO! Not knowing what "placebo" is means
that it could be part of the homeopathic "effect"!

>
> [snip]> Getting back to placebo, is it the expectation of being cured but the
> > curative agent cannot be identified. Does it involve the activation
> > of unknown curative pheonomena? Does it inolve a homeopathic or other
> > remedy as a catalyst to activate it but in which the remedy otherwise
> > plays no part??
>
> [snip]
>
> Typically, if the ingredient does no better than either doing
> nothing,
> or giving a placebo, the conclusion would be that the ingredient does
> nothing. However, you seem to be seeking new definitions of
> "working".

No! Not a new definition. I want to know what "working" is!
How does "working" work?!!
>
> > Does it involve the most fundamental reorganization of what exactly is
> > our definition of "cure", "patient", "disease" as the homoepaths have
> > proposed.
>
> It seems the utmost act of desperation to try to redefine words to
> have a point at all. It was my observation about acupuncture in
> the origin of this subthread. There is a tendency to use words with
> precise meanings, but with new or nontechnical meanings in
> technical contexts.

No desperation at all, EXASPERATION!

No attempts at redefines, just try and get the pro homoepathics and
anti homeopathics and researchers to all agree on the
SAME definitions!!!

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back