Calling all wlaking Chiropracters, Osteopaths, Physiotherapists and Doctors



Citizen Jimserac wrote:
> 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.

You say all the work is being done by academics, but where do you
think their money comes from? It comes from the industries that
hope to make money back and then some on the ideas. To suggest
it's all going on advertising is ridiculous, and I can say that
easily as I can see plenty of buildings going up all around me
which I'm damn sure haven't been financed by MRC grants!

> 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.

You come up with a better way of testing and they'll be happy to go
with it, I would imagine.

> Say,
> you're right , there IS some really BIG money floating around in
> this industry!!!

There certainly is. Insurance has quite a lot floating about too...

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:
> 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.

You say all the work is being done by academics, but where do you
think their money comes from? It comes from the industries that
hope to make money back and then some on the ideas. To suggest
it's all going on advertising is ridiculous, and I can say that
easily as I can see plenty of buildings going up all around me
which I'm damn sure haven't been financed by MRC grants!

> 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.

You come up with a better way of testing and they'll be happy to go
with it, I would imagine.

> Say,
> you're right , there IS some really BIG money floating around in
> this industry!!!

There certainly is. Insurance has quite a lot floating about too...

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:
> 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.

You say all the work is being done by academics, but where do you
think their money comes from? It comes from the industries that
hope to make money back and then some on the ideas. To suggest
it's all going on advertising is ridiculous, and I can say that
easily as I can see plenty of buildings going up all around me
which I'm damn sure haven't been financed by MRC grants!

> 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.

You come up with a better way of testing and they'll be happy to go
with it, I would imagine.

> Say,
> you're right , there IS some really BIG money floating around in
> this industry!!!

There certainly is. Insurance has quite a lot floating about too...

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 9, 7:07 pm, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:34 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > Logically NO! Not knowing what "placebo" is means
> > > that it could be part of the homeopathic "effect"!
>
> > In this context, the expression "placebo" means an item
> > NOT part of the homeopathic process. Not sure how that
> > means it could then be PART of the homeopathic process.
>
> Now YOU are doing the redefining! See?

No. By definition a placebo is a substitute substance. You can't
have a substance that is part of the study also be the placebo.

[snip]
> I understand exactly your objections and I almost think the same,
> except in the back of my mind I keep thinking of all those people who
> had their stomach ulcers cut out because the "theory" deemed itself
> omniscient that there could be no other explanation other than
> "stress" and "diet" and yet there WAS.


That's a major distortion of what happened. The only known
treatments
were used. It would have been unethical to "experiment" on people in
the absence of any reason to do the experiment. You can't go hunting
for ghosts while you treat people. If you know what to look for,
fine. But in the case you cite, no one knew what they were looking
for, regardless of whether they believed it was there or not.
 
On Nov 9, 7:07 pm, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:34 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > Logically NO! Not knowing what "placebo" is means
> > > that it could be part of the homeopathic "effect"!
>
> > In this context, the expression "placebo" means an item
> > NOT part of the homeopathic process. Not sure how that
> > means it could then be PART of the homeopathic process.
>
> Now YOU are doing the redefining! See?

No. By definition a placebo is a substitute substance. You can't
have a substance that is part of the study also be the placebo.

[snip]
> I understand exactly your objections and I almost think the same,
> except in the back of my mind I keep thinking of all those people who
> had their stomach ulcers cut out because the "theory" deemed itself
> omniscient that there could be no other explanation other than
> "stress" and "diet" and yet there WAS.


That's a major distortion of what happened. The only known
treatments
were used. It would have been unethical to "experiment" on people in
the absence of any reason to do the experiment. You can't go hunting
for ghosts while you treat people. If you know what to look for,
fine. But in the case you cite, no one knew what they were looking
for, regardless of whether they believed it was there or not.
 
On Nov 9, 7:07 pm, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:34 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > Logically NO! Not knowing what "placebo" is means
> > > that it could be part of the homeopathic "effect"!
>
> > In this context, the expression "placebo" means an item
> > NOT part of the homeopathic process. Not sure how that
> > means it could then be PART of the homeopathic process.
>
> Now YOU are doing the redefining! See?

No. By definition a placebo is a substitute substance. You can't
have a substance that is part of the study also be the placebo.

[snip]
> I understand exactly your objections and I almost think the same,
> except in the back of my mind I keep thinking of all those people who
> had their stomach ulcers cut out because the "theory" deemed itself
> omniscient that there could be no other explanation other than
> "stress" and "diet" and yet there WAS.


That's a major distortion of what happened. The only known
treatments
were used. It would have been unethical to "experiment" on people in
the absence of any reason to do the experiment. You can't go hunting
for ghosts while you treat people. If you know what to look for,
fine. But in the case you cite, no one knew what they were looking
for, regardless of whether they believed it was there or not.
 
On Nov 9, 7:07 pm, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:34 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > Logically NO! Not knowing what "placebo" is means
> > > that it could be part of the homeopathic "effect"!
>
> > In this context, the expression "placebo" means an item
> > NOT part of the homeopathic process. Not sure how that
> > means it could then be PART of the homeopathic process.
>
> Now YOU are doing the redefining! See?

No. By definition a placebo is a substitute substance. You can't
have a substance that is part of the study also be the placebo.

[snip]
> I understand exactly your objections and I almost think the same,
> except in the back of my mind I keep thinking of all those people who
> had their stomach ulcers cut out because the "theory" deemed itself
> omniscient that there could be no other explanation other than
> "stress" and "diet" and yet there WAS.


That's a major distortion of what happened. The only known
treatments
were used. It would have been unethical to "experiment" on people in
the absence of any reason to do the experiment. You can't go hunting
for ghosts while you treat people. If you know what to look for,
fine. But in the case you cite, no one knew what they were looking
for, regardless of whether they believed it was there or not.
 
On Nov 10, 5:17 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 7:07 pm, CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 1:34 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > Logically NO! Not knowing what "placebo" is means
> > > > that it could be part of the homeopathic "effect"!
>
> > > In this context, the expression "placebo" means an item
> > > NOT part of the homeopathic process. Not sure how that
> > > means it could then be PART of the homeopathic process.
>
> > Now YOU are doing the redefining! See?
>
> No. By definition a placebo is a substitute substance. You can't
> have a substance that is part of the study also be the placebo.
>
> [snip]
>
> > I understand exactly your objections and I almost think the same,
> > except in the back of my mind I keep thinking of all those people who
> > had their stomach ulcers cut out because the "theory" deemed itself
> > omniscient that there could be no other explanation other than
> > "stress" and "diet" and yet there WAS.
>
> That's a major distortion of what happened. The only known
> treatments
> were used. It would have been unethical to "experiment" on people in
> the absence of any reason to do the experiment. You can't go hunting
> for ghosts while you treat people. If you know what to look for,
> fine. But in the case you cite, no one knew what they were looking
> for, regardless of whether they believed it was there or not.

The "standard" treatment for certain types of stomach ulcers in the
1960's
was to remove part of the stomach. There was no experimentation and
this operatin was performed many tens of thousands of times.

I understand your point, agreed, you cannot hunt for ghosts while
treating people. But just think of the people whose "treatment" would
have been so much easier had the correct theory, radical though it may
have seemed at the time, been given a chance.

The researcher that proposed the idea was treated to unreasonable
scorn, dissension, even ridicule, MUCH the way homeopaths are now
treated by some.

THAT is the problem with "standard" medicine. They are very good at
much of what they do, usually, but they wear blinders.

And THAT is exactly why I'm willing to evaluate homeopathy in the face
of initially contradictory or even negative testing results, or more
correctly, testing results from misdesigned tests that probably can
prove nothing either way until their protocols have been improved.

Until some REAL tests are devised, appropriate to its own modality, I
will continue reading in the areas of the Homeopathic dilution
techniques, and in the areas of the supposed cures which this modality
is said to have produced, for my own interest.
There is enough of an historical record such that this might prove of
interest.

I will report on anything of interest that I learn, pro or con.

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 10, 5:17 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 7:07 pm, CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 1:34 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > Logically NO! Not knowing what "placebo" is means
> > > > that it could be part of the homeopathic "effect"!
>
> > > In this context, the expression "placebo" means an item
> > > NOT part of the homeopathic process. Not sure how that
> > > means it could then be PART of the homeopathic process.
>
> > Now YOU are doing the redefining! See?
>
> No. By definition a placebo is a substitute substance. You can't
> have a substance that is part of the study also be the placebo.
>
> [snip]
>
> > I understand exactly your objections and I almost think the same,
> > except in the back of my mind I keep thinking of all those people who
> > had their stomach ulcers cut out because the "theory" deemed itself
> > omniscient that there could be no other explanation other than
> > "stress" and "diet" and yet there WAS.
>
> That's a major distortion of what happened. The only known
> treatments
> were used. It would have been unethical to "experiment" on people in
> the absence of any reason to do the experiment. You can't go hunting
> for ghosts while you treat people. If you know what to look for,
> fine. But in the case you cite, no one knew what they were looking
> for, regardless of whether they believed it was there or not.

The "standard" treatment for certain types of stomach ulcers in the
1960's
was to remove part of the stomach. There was no experimentation and
this operatin was performed many tens of thousands of times.

I understand your point, agreed, you cannot hunt for ghosts while
treating people. But just think of the people whose "treatment" would
have been so much easier had the correct theory, radical though it may
have seemed at the time, been given a chance.

The researcher that proposed the idea was treated to unreasonable
scorn, dissension, even ridicule, MUCH the way homeopaths are now
treated by some.

THAT is the problem with "standard" medicine. They are very good at
much of what they do, usually, but they wear blinders.

And THAT is exactly why I'm willing to evaluate homeopathy in the face
of initially contradictory or even negative testing results, or more
correctly, testing results from misdesigned tests that probably can
prove nothing either way until their protocols have been improved.

Until some REAL tests are devised, appropriate to its own modality, I
will continue reading in the areas of the Homeopathic dilution
techniques, and in the areas of the supposed cures which this modality
is said to have produced, for my own interest.
There is enough of an historical record such that this might prove of
interest.

I will report on anything of interest that I learn, pro or con.

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 10, 5:17 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 7:07 pm, CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 1:34 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > Logically NO! Not knowing what "placebo" is means
> > > > that it could be part of the homeopathic "effect"!
>
> > > In this context, the expression "placebo" means an item
> > > NOT part of the homeopathic process. Not sure how that
> > > means it could then be PART of the homeopathic process.
>
> > Now YOU are doing the redefining! See?
>
> No. By definition a placebo is a substitute substance. You can't
> have a substance that is part of the study also be the placebo.
>
> [snip]
>
> > I understand exactly your objections and I almost think the same,
> > except in the back of my mind I keep thinking of all those people who
> > had their stomach ulcers cut out because the "theory" deemed itself
> > omniscient that there could be no other explanation other than
> > "stress" and "diet" and yet there WAS.
>
> That's a major distortion of what happened. The only known
> treatments
> were used. It would have been unethical to "experiment" on people in
> the absence of any reason to do the experiment. You can't go hunting
> for ghosts while you treat people. If you know what to look for,
> fine. But in the case you cite, no one knew what they were looking
> for, regardless of whether they believed it was there or not.

The "standard" treatment for certain types of stomach ulcers in the
1960's
was to remove part of the stomach. There was no experimentation and
this operatin was performed many tens of thousands of times.

I understand your point, agreed, you cannot hunt for ghosts while
treating people. But just think of the people whose "treatment" would
have been so much easier had the correct theory, radical though it may
have seemed at the time, been given a chance.

The researcher that proposed the idea was treated to unreasonable
scorn, dissension, even ridicule, MUCH the way homeopaths are now
treated by some.

THAT is the problem with "standard" medicine. They are very good at
much of what they do, usually, but they wear blinders.

And THAT is exactly why I'm willing to evaluate homeopathy in the face
of initially contradictory or even negative testing results, or more
correctly, testing results from misdesigned tests that probably can
prove nothing either way until their protocols have been improved.

Until some REAL tests are devised, appropriate to its own modality, I
will continue reading in the areas of the Homeopathic dilution
techniques, and in the areas of the supposed cures which this modality
is said to have produced, for my own interest.
There is enough of an historical record such that this might prove of
interest.

I will report on anything of interest that I learn, pro or con.

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
 
On Nov 10, 5:17 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 7:07 pm, CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 1:34 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > Logically NO! Not knowing what "placebo" is means
> > > > that it could be part of the homeopathic "effect"!
>
> > > In this context, the expression "placebo" means an item
> > > NOT part of the homeopathic process. Not sure how that
> > > means it could then be PART of the homeopathic process.
>
> > Now YOU are doing the redefining! See?
>
> No. By definition a placebo is a substitute substance. You can't
> have a substance that is part of the study also be the placebo.
>
> [snip]
>
> > I understand exactly your objections and I almost think the same,
> > except in the back of my mind I keep thinking of all those people who
> > had their stomach ulcers cut out because the "theory" deemed itself
> > omniscient that there could be no other explanation other than
> > "stress" and "diet" and yet there WAS.
>
> That's a major distortion of what happened. The only known
> treatments
> were used. It would have been unethical to "experiment" on people in
> the absence of any reason to do the experiment. You can't go hunting
> for ghosts while you treat people. If you know what to look for,
> fine. But in the case you cite, no one knew what they were looking
> for, regardless of whether they believed it was there or not.

The "standard" treatment for certain types of stomach ulcers in the
1960's
was to remove part of the stomach. There was no experimentation and
this operatin was performed many tens of thousands of times.

I understand your point, agreed, you cannot hunt for ghosts while
treating people. But just think of the people whose "treatment" would
have been so much easier had the correct theory, radical though it may
have seemed at the time, been given a chance.

The researcher that proposed the idea was treated to unreasonable
scorn, dissension, even ridicule, MUCH the way homeopaths are now
treated by some.

THAT is the problem with "standard" medicine. They are very good at
much of what they do, usually, but they wear blinders.

And THAT is exactly why I'm willing to evaluate homeopathy in the face
of initially contradictory or even negative testing results, or more
correctly, testing results from misdesigned tests that probably can
prove nothing either way until their protocols have been improved.

Until some REAL tests are devised, appropriate to its own modality, I
will continue reading in the areas of the Homeopathic dilution
techniques, and in the areas of the supposed cures which this modality
is said to have produced, for my own interest.
There is enough of an historical record such that this might prove of
interest.

I will report on anything of interest that I learn, pro or con.

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
 
In message <[email protected]>
Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:

> I understand your point, agreed, you cannot hunt for ghosts while
> treating people. But just think of the people whose "treatment" would
> have been so much easier had the correct theory, radical though it may
> have seemed at the time, been given a chance.

And how many would have suffered if every possible theory was given
the chance? You can't defend crackpot ideas by saying that scientists
have missed the correct one in the past. Occasional mistakes do not
lend extra weight to the more extreme ideas.

--
Simon Challands
 
In message <[email protected]>
Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:

> I understand your point, agreed, you cannot hunt for ghosts while
> treating people. But just think of the people whose "treatment" would
> have been so much easier had the correct theory, radical though it may
> have seemed at the time, been given a chance.

And how many would have suffered if every possible theory was given
the chance? You can't defend crackpot ideas by saying that scientists
have missed the correct one in the past. Occasional mistakes do not
lend extra weight to the more extreme ideas.

--
Simon Challands
 
On Nov 11, 11:19 am, Simon Challands <[email protected]>
wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I understand your point, agreed, you cannot hunt for ghosts while
> > treating people. But just think of the people whose "treatment" would
> > have been so much easier had the correct theory, radical though it may
> > have seemed at the time, been given a chance.
>
> And how many would have suffered if every possible theory was given
> the chance? You can't defend crackpot ideas by saying that scientists
> have missed the correct one in the past. Occasional mistakes do not
> lend extra weight to the more extreme ideas.
>
> --
> Simon Challands

I could not agree more. I just urge caution against deciding exactly
what is a crackpot idea because once that opinion takes hold, it KILLS
all additional research.

There is a possible crackpot idea right now in the pharmaceutical
industry that their holy and sanctiifed double blind studies are the
be all and end all of pharmaceutical testing.
But, we are amazed to read in the recent news that 27,000 people have
won a suit against Merc
for which Merc will pay an astonishing nearly 5 billion dollars as
settlement.
The Vioxx drug around which this suit occurred was apparently found
contributory to increased risk of BOTH stroke and heart disease.

May I suggest that you temporarily abandon the ramparts of the anti-
Homeopathy position, which, if it is nonsense, is relatively harmless
nonsense and focus your attention on the apparently increasing
occurrences of DANGEROUS drugs being approved for general use by an
apparently inept, or insufficient testing procedure.

In case you feel that the numbers of dangerous drugs are statistically
insignificant,
you may discover that the families of lost or ill loved ones do not
agree
and any medical system which reduces people to statistics is unfit for
human
consumption, in my opinion.

I am NOT AT ALL sure that Homeopathy even works, but I AM SURE
that standardized medicine, judging from their frequently recurring
failures, IS NOT WORKING.

Citizen Jimserac
 
In message <[email protected]>, me
<[email protected]> writes
> And history is full of these. It is where old
>wives tales come from. Magic stones, crystals,
>pyramids, magnets, shamens, voodoo, and
>fortune tellers all have adherents to this day, and
>can point to decades if not centuries of predicessors.

Not forgetting Victor Borge's uncle who worked on a cure for a hitherto
incurable disease. Unfortunately he caught the cure and died.
--
Bill Grey
 
Citizen Jimserac wrote:

> 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.

We can /much/ more easily conclude it's part of "experimenter effect".
Lots of reputable scientists have suffered from it over the years.

> BUT, is this not at
> the center of what the word, "placebo" is all about.

Errrrr, no, not really!

A placebo is a neutral (to the experimenter's best ability) substance
given in a similar manner and dosage to the test substance. Now, it's
possible that small pills made up primarily of lactose do have an
effect, but it will almost certainly be trivial to anyone without
lactose intolerance, or a glass of milk would likely be doing weird ****
on a regular basis.

> 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.

It's long been known that some people get better when given something
that won't really do anything at a straightforward drug target/actual
probblem level. A flip side is over-prescription of antibiotics :-(

> 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?

Not charlatans, just human, and prone to human failings and errors.

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 12, 3:46 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:
> > 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.
>
> We can /much/ more easily conclude it's part of "experimenter effect".
> Lots of reputable scientists have suffered from it over the years.
>
> > BUT, is this not at
> > the center of what the word, "placebo" is all about.
>
> Errrrr, no, not really!
>
> A placebo is a neutral (to the experimenter's best ability) substance
> given in a similar manner and dosage to the test substance. Now, it's
> possible that small pills made up primarily of lactose do have an
> effect, but it will almost certainly be trivial to anyone without
> lactose intolerance, or a glass of milk would likely be doing weird ****
> on a regular basis.
>
> > 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.
>
> It's long been known that some people get better when given something
> that won't really do anything at a straightforward drug target/actual
> probblem level. A flip side is over-prescription of antibiotics :-(
>
> > 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?
>
> Not charlatans, just human, and prone to human failings and errors.
>
> 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/

Well said, though I personally do NOT accept
"placebo" or "spontaneous remission" as acceptable
explanations.

The unknown, Clinch, it is all about the unknown and being comfortable
with it.

Those who promote the delusion of certainty are doomed to be slaves of
it.

Thanks Again,
Citizen Jimserac
 
Citizen Jimserac wrote:

> Well said, though I personally do NOT accept
> "placebo" or "spontaneous remission" as acceptable
> explanations.

They are not an attempt at a *full* explanation (I assume you mean
"placebo effect" rather than just "placebo"). And even if they were
(which they're not) then since they are, by their nature, unpredictable,
you can't use them to predict anything, which is what you need to be
able to do when prescribing treatments.

> The unknown, Clinch, it is all about the unknown and being comfortable
> with it.
>
> Those who promote the delusion of certainty are doomed to be slaves of
> it.

Indeed, but if we're in a position to put relative confidence limits on
things then it makes a lot of sense to do so. And if we can't see a
clear effect from something but can't rule it out completely it should
be assigned a much lower level of confidence than a treatment which
works in a significant number of reproducible, tightly controlled trials.

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 10, 6:01 pm, Citizen Jimserac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 5:17 pm, me <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > I understand exactly your objections and I almost think the same,
> > > except in the back of my mind I keep thinking of all those people who
> > > had their stomach ulcers cut out because the "theory" deemed itself
> > > omniscient that there could be no other explanation other than
> > > "stress" and "diet" and yet there WAS.
>
> > That's a major distortion of what happened. The only known treatments
> > were used. It would have been unethical to "experiment" on people in
> > the absence of any reason to do the experiment. You can't go hunting
> > for ghosts while you treat people. If you know what to look for,
> > fine. But in the case you cite, no one knew what they were looking
> > for, regardless of whether they believed it was there or not.
>
> The "standard" treatment for certain types of stomach ulcers in the 1960's
> was to remove part of the stomach. There was no experimentation and
> this operation was performed many tens of thousands of times.

And it was "successful" in "treating" the condition. It would have
been an experiment to give them large doses of antibiotic in some
vauge "belief" that it was caused by bacteria. Furthermore, without
knowing what kind of bacteria, it could have easily "failed" because
the wrong antibiotic was chosen.

> I understand your point, agreed, you cannot hunt for ghosts while
> treating people. But just think of the people whose "treatment" would
> have been so much easier had the correct theory, radical though it may
> have seemed at the time, been given a chance.

You demonstrated absolutely no understanding of the "scientific
process", much less medical ethics. It would have been grossly
unethical, on the proportions of a "Mengele" level to have "given
a chance" to some "radical" theory" on living, breathing, patients
for whom an existing treatment was known which would have
"cured" them.

> The researcher that proposed the idea was treated to unreasonable
> scorn, dissension, even ridicule, MUCH the way homeopaths are now
> treated by some.

The existence of ridicule will exist in any effort. That, in and
of
itself, is not a demonstration that there is something wrong with
the scientific process. The vast majority of criticism of homeopathy
isn't based up "ridicule", but upon the complete lack of demonstrable
reason to support the proposition. Homeopathy has been around for
a couple of centuries now, and in all that time they have not been
able to demonstrate any reasonable level of success. Something
one cannot claim for relatively "scientific" medical care that is used
world wide.

> THAT is the problem with "standard" medicine. They are very good at
> much of what they do, usually, but they wear blinders.

Those aren't "blinders". The scientific process is a well
developed
process by which bias is removed from evaluation and results are
considered based upon their objective repeatability.

> And THAT is exactly why I'm willing to evaluate homeopathy in the face
> of initially contradictory or even negative testing results, or more
> correctly, testing results from misdesigned tests that probably can
> prove nothing either way until their protocols have been improved.

Evaluate your butt off. That's the scientific process in action.
Science never stops testing and evaluation. The very nature of
science encourages the repeating of tests. This is especially true
when new ways to conduct tests are created. However, in a world
with limited resources, including time, one might understand that
somethings stop getting tested much when, after a couple hundred
years, no one can find anything worth investigating anymore.

> Until some REAL tests are devised, appropriate to its own modality, I
> will continue reading in the areas of the Homeopathic dilution
> techniques, and in the areas of the supposed cures which this modality
> is said to have produced, for my own interest.
[snip]

Couple of hundred years and the adherents still can't seem to
define this "real test". That, in and of itself, ought to suggest
something
to you.
 
On Nov 12, 8:32 am, me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 6:01 pm, CitizenJimserac<[email protected]> wrote:

> Couple of hundred years and the adherents still can't seem to
> define this "real test". That, in and of itself, ought to suggest
> something
> to you.

Taking to heart your sincere admonition, I did a search on the
scientist who was "discredited" in the Nature article in the late
1980's and who proposed that absurd "memory of a molecule Idea".

To my complete amazement, I discover that Nature, as well as Lancet,
cut some very serious corners in the disparagement of Mssr. Benveniste
and I am really getting fed up with those who use unsound science or
innuendo in order to discredit someone's work.

If Homeopathy is the nonsense everyone says it is (including, almost,
myself) why the hell can't they use simple science to discredit it??
See for yourself,
look at this obituary of Benveniste which appeared in
the London Daily Mail in 2004.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20041011/ai_n12811756

Now this obituary shows Dr. Benveniste to be a valid researcher and he
spent TWO YEARS double checking his tests and getting positive results
on the "memory molecule" thingy. Initially Beneveniste was a complete
skeptic but was encouraged to do the experiments suggested by an MD
colleague of his who also was interested in Homeopathy.

WE are told by the anti-Homeopathists that it is all nonsense,
yet Maddox of the highly respected journal Nature, rather than call in
a team of scientific experts, instead on his own, decided beforehand
that it was all a fraud and called in Randi and some other debunkers.
In other words, Maddox set out
before hand to discredit Benvensite's research rather than

Also, some of the tests conducted gave positive results. In addition,
several of the outside labs confirmed Benveniste's findings completely
and a couple of others did not.

NOW, even if Homeopathy is complete nonsense, there is NO reason to
abandon science and use tricks to discredit it.

Benveniste went on to formulate a theory of inter molecular
communication involving electro magnetics. Complete nonsense like
Homeopathy is supposed to be?

How the hell will we ever know unless DEFINITIVE UNBIASED tests are
performed??

Now I admonish YOU to pay a little more attention to articles which
discredit Homeopathy and to the "research" on which they based and the
circumstances under which they are conducted before blindly accepting
their negative and unwarranted conclusions and blindly agreeing with
those
who prefer to reject the unknown as impossible. YOU, as a scientist
should know better!!


READ the obiturary again, regarding Mssr. Benveniste's research. just
in case you are not sure.

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