Water Remembers? Gimme a Break!

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Nana Weedkiller, Jan 31, 2004.

  1. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/GMAB_homeopathy_040130-1.html
    http://tinyurl.com/232uv Homeopathy Can Water Really Remember?

    Commentary By John Stossel

    Jan. 30 - Americans are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on homeopathic remedies
    believed to relieve the flu, colds, allergies and more, but the effectiveness of many remains
    debatable. [...] "It's nonsense. Total nonsense. It's mythology," said James Randi, a former
    magician known as the "Amazing Randi," who now runs a foundation that specializes in debunking what
    he calls pseudo science.

    "Dilution is a term that they don't know the meaning of," said Randi. He said the process leaves
    them with "water."

    "If homeopathy can be shown to work, [I'll give you] a million dollars," said Randi. His foundation
    offers that sum to anyone who can demonstrate any paranormal or supernatural phenomenon works. He
    says that includes homeopathy. [...] To take the challenge, we checked with Ullman, who described a
    scientific process for testing the effectiveness of homeopathy. "One way to test it is by using
    different homeopathic doses of histamine and seeing its effects on a type of white blood cells,"
    said Ullman.

    "Homeopathic doses of histamine would have a dramatic effect upon the white blood cells - these
    basophils," said Ullman. "And they would decrease in number."

    So we set it up, in Europe, where similar published tests claimed to find that kind of effect.
    Scientists at Guy's Hospital in London prepared samples of the type of histamines that Ullman said
    would relieve allergy symptoms. [...] And the Results Are .

    The test took a week. Three homeopaths were there to make sure the dilutions were done properly.

    When the results came in, the homeopathic preparations had no demonstrable effect.

    "[There's] no evidence at all that there's any difference between the tubes that started up with
    histamine and the tubes that started up with water," said Professor J. Martin Bland. "Mr. Stossel
    can kiss his million dollars goodbye."
     
    Tags:


  2. Wb

    Wb Guest

    On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 06:26:27 GMT, "Nana Weedkiller" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Can Waters Really Remember?

    Well, I think that Roger can.

    <hehe>

    WB
    --

    "I can dance on the head of a pin as well"
    -Yoshimo
     
  3. kathy37

    kathy37 Guest

    Is this to be a tv segment? Or only an internet web site commentary?
     
  4. WB <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 06:26:27 GMT, "Nana Weedkiller" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Can Waters Really Remember?
    >
    >
    >Well, I think that Roger can.
    >
    ><hehe>
    >
    >WB

    The Australian actor John Waters does a fabulous show called "Looking through a glass onion" which
    celebrates the work of John Lennon. As it is a nostalgia show, I suppose that it is a case of Waters
    remembering.

    --
    Peter Bowditch
    The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
    The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
    and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  5. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Is this to be a tv segment? Or only an internet web site commentary?
    >

    It was on ABC's 20/20 segment called Give Me a Break which aired Friday evening. The URL was a
    transcript of that segment. Stossel also has a segment called Myth Busters which is also informative
    and interesting.

    PS. Welcome to the *gang*, Kathy! ;-)
     
  6. Baldrick

    Baldrick Guest

    Man on the moon ? Gimme a break !

    "Jojo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:p[email protected]
    address.org...
    > On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 06:26:27 +0000, Nana Weedkiller wrote:
    >
    > > Homeopathy Can Water Really Remember?
     
  7. Alan Jacques

    Alan Jacques Guest

    Sadley your right, homoeopathy is largely misunderstood. A great deal of peoples experiences stem
    from lay persribing such as through chemists and health food shops. Luckily here in Australia
    practitioners charge on average $50 per visit, frankley I don't know how your guys explain charging
    $300 to themselves; perhaps it's all that out of control liability stuff you folks have.

    Unfortunatly you chose the wrong remedy. Arnica is mostly used for trauma around the time of the
    accident. You probably would have been better served by rhus tox or bryonia for the sprain, or
    perhaps ledum to carry away any extravasions of blood. All of these in 30c 1-2 times per day until
    you see results and there after backing doses off.

    Regards -A.

    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > After lurking/occasionally posting on another Alt. Health Board, I got the definite feeling that
    > most people using homeopathic "remedies" don't really understand their concept even as they use
    > them. If they do at all, the "like cures like" is the part that makes them nod their head in
    > agreement ("seems somewhat like vaccines " I think may be the reason), while, more commonly,
    > homeopathic's "law of infinitesimals" goes over their head or, more rarely, they just ignore it.
    >
    > My sole personal experience with homeopathic remedies was with my sprained knee last spring.
    > After trying the acupuncture sessions with no success, I thought I'd try Arnica in pellets over-the-
    > counter since my condition was still rather "acute" rather than "chronic", which seems to be the
    > criteria as to whether one should consult an actual practioner ($300 for the first long, long
    > session around my area & not covered by my health insurance plan had I even considered going
    > this route).
    >
    > At any rate, after faithfully following their rules (between 3 & 5 tablets thrice a day---I took
    > 4---& being extremely careful "not to touch" ---for the requisite number of days), nothing
    > happened, good or bad. I also concurrently rubbed Arnica Gel over my knee without result. So
    > there's My Testimonial.
    >

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/2004
     
  8. Alan Jacques

    Alan Jacques Guest

    Just a few points....

    It's nonsense. Total nonsense. It's mythology," said James Randi, a former
    > magician known as the "Amazing Randi," who now runs a foundation that specializes in debunking
    > what he calls pseudo science.

    Yup this guy is obviously a well informed authority on medicine and homoeopathy.

    "If homeopathy can be shown to work, [I'll give you] a million dollars,"
    > said Randi. His foundation offers that sum to anyone who can demonstrate
    any
    > paranormal or supernatural phenomenon works. He says that includes homeopathy.

    Modern science still doesn't know how anaesthetic works; but they can show its clinical efficacy.

    To take the challenge, we checked with Ullman, who described a scientific
    > process for testing the effectiveness of homeopathy. "One way to test it
    is
    > by using different homeopathic doses of histamine and seeing its effects
    on
    > a type of white blood cells," said Ullman.

    These guys were testing the famous "water has memory" theory. Debunking this theory does not
    necessarily debunk homoeopathy. The documentary you linked was a well balanced look at both side of
    an old aurguement; unfortunatly you omited the positive evidence that they offered in your review.

    Most research methods used by what we know of as modern medicine are not effective for
    investigateing homoeopathy. There is enough clinical evidence from adults, babies and animals to
    negate placebo effect. This alone should be enough to provoke the medical community into more
    thorough investigations. Sadley however it remains that most critisisms directed at homoeopathy are
    emotive and political rather than scientific.

    Regards -A.

    ---
    "Nana Weedkiller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > Is this to be a tv segment? Or only an internet web site commentary?
    > >
    >
    > It was on ABC's 20/20 segment called Give Me a Break which aired Friday evening. The URL was a
    > transcript of that segment. Stossel also has a segment called Myth Busters which is also
    > informative and interesting.
    >
    > PS. Welcome to the *gang*, Kathy! ;-)
    >
    >

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/2004
     
  9. Baldrick

    Baldrick Guest

    Yup, somebody that self-prescribes shouldn´t be tempted to make any judgements from it´s results ...
    As if I try to operate myself and seeing the results I conclude that all surgeons are butchers ...
    BTW the 300 fee is a scandal, I wonder who would pay that sum. Hahnemann, the creator of homeopathy,
    charged his customers only if they got cured. But anyway, you shouldn´t expect to see that fairplay
    these days ...

    "Alan Jacques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Sadley your right, homoeopathy is largely misunderstood. A great deal of peoples experiences stem
    > from lay persribing such as through chemists and health food shops.
     
  10. "Alan Jacques" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Modern science still doesn't know how anaesthetic works; but they can show its clinical efficacy.

    A classic claim of believers in magic.

    "You can't explain how anaesthetics work but they do. We can't explain how homeopathy works either,
    therefore it does".

    --
    Peter Bowditch
    The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
    The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
    and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  11. Rod

    Rod Guest

    "Peter Bowditch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Alan Jacques" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Modern science still doesn't know how anaesthetic works; but they can
    show
    > >its clinical efficacy.

    Modern Science still doesn't know how a placebo works; but they can show its clinical efficacy.

    >
    > A classic claim of believers in magic.

    So Modern Science also believe in Magic?

    >
    > "You can't explain how anaesthetics work but they do. We can't explain how homeopathy works
    > either, therefore it does".

    You can't explain anything outside the three dots that your mind represents.

    Cheers, Rod.

    >
    > --
    > Peter Bowditch The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles The Green Light
    > http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added
    > Vitamins and
    C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  12. "Alan Jacques" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    news:[email protected]...
    > Just a few points....
    >
    >
    > It's nonsense. Total nonsense. It's mythology," said James Randi, a former
    > > magician known as the "Amazing Randi," who now runs a foundation that specializes in debunking
    > > what he calls pseudo science.
    >
    > Yup this guy is obviously a well informed authority on medicine and homoeopathy.

    Maybe not, but he does seem an authority on make belief; after all, magic is make belief.
    >

    > "If homeopathy can be shown to work, [I'll give you] a million dollars,"
    > > said Randi. His foundation offers that sum to anyone who can demonstrate
    > any
    > > paranormal or supernatural phenomenon works. He says that includes homeopathy.
    >
    > Modern science still doesn't know how anaesthetic works; but they can show its clinical efficacy.

    That would still be more than homeopathy can. Thus far, there have been no convincing studies
    showing the clinical efficacy of homeopathy, despite a number of well controlled clinical trials. In
    fact, the better the trials have been set-up, the less efficacious homeopathy seems to be.

    >
    > To take the challenge, we checked with Ullman, who described a scientific
    > > process for testing the effectiveness of homeopathy. "One way to test it
    > is
    > > by using different homeopathic doses of histamine and seeing its effects
    > on
    > > a type of white blood cells," said Ullman.
    >
    > These guys were testing the famous "water has memory" theory. Debunking
    this
    > theory does not necessarily debunk homoeopathy.

    True. It's little use trying to debunk a theory explaining an effect when that effect hasn't
    been shown.

    > The documentary you linked was a well balanced look at both side of an old aurguement;
    > unfortunatly
    you
    > omited the positive evidence that they offered in your review.

    It would be good if you could produce those positive findings here.

    >
    >
    > Most research methods used by what we know of as modern medicine are not effective for
    > investigateing homoeopathy.

    Alas, this is not true although often heard. Statistics don't change because the hypothesis is
    alternative, it remains the same. Granted, by its very nature, homeopathy would prohibit all
    subjects with the same condition to recieve the same remedy, but there are ways around that. What
    can be tested are the tenets of homeopathy, not just one single remedy but rather, the question
    would be "does homeopathic treatment produce different results from nonsense (placebo) treatment?".
    It would involve actors (to make the patients believe they're being treated by a real homeopath),
    homeopaths (to actually treat a group), physicians (to asses the improvement -if any- in the
    patient). It takes some more design in the study, but don't think it couldn't be done.

    > There is enough clinical evidence from adults, babies and animals to negate placebo effect.
    > This alone
    should
    > be enough to provoke the medical community into more thorough investigations.

    It would be good if you could produce this convincing clinical evidence (clinical evidence !=
    anecdotes).

    > Sadley however it remains that most critisisms directed at homoeopathy are emotive and political
    > rather than scientific.

    --
    Robert Bronsing
     
  13. Peter Bowditch wrote:
    > "Alan Jacques" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Modern science still doesn't know how anaesthetic works; but they can show its clinical efficacy.
    >
    >
    > A classic claim of believers in magic.
    >
    > "You can't explain how anaesthetics work but they do. We can't explain how homeopathy works
    > either, therefore it does".
    >
    > --
    > Peter Bowditch The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles The Green Light
    > http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added
    > Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

    "You can't explain how anaesthetics work but they do. We can't explain
    > how homeopathy works either, therefore it does".

    Great quote.

    J.
     
  14. "Rod" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Peter Bowditch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> "Alan Jacques" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Modern science still doesn't know how anaesthetic works; but they can
    >show
    >> >its clinical efficacy.
    >
    >Modern Science still doesn't know how a placebo works; but they can show its clinical efficacy.

    Modern science does not think that placebos work. Modern science uses placebos to eliminate a
    possible independent variable in clinical trials. Modern science recognises that for various
    reasons, subjects in the control group may show an improvement unrelated to the medication or
    treatment being tested. Modern science looks for a statistically significant difference between a
    treatment and doing nothing.

    By the way, the word "modern" is redundant at all places in which it appears in the previous
    paragraph.

    >> A classic claim of believers in magic.
    >
    >So Modern Science also believe in Magic?

    Why would you think that?

    >>
    >> "You can't explain how anaesthetics work but they do. We can't explain how homeopathy works
    >> either, therefore it does".
    >
    >You can't explain anything outside the three dots that your mind represents.

    Are you speaking elliptically?

    --
    Peter Bowditch
    The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
    The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
    and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  15. Alan Jacques

    Alan Jacques Guest

    Here's something interesting. The tradition in China was that you stop paying the doctor when you
    got sick because he obviously wasn't doing his job properly. -A.

    "Baldrick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Yup, somebody that self-prescribes shouldn´t be tempted to make any judgements from it´s results
    > ... As if I try to operate myself and seeing the results I conclude that all surgeons are butchers
    > ... BTW the 300 fee is a scandal, I wonder who would pay that sum. Hahnemann, the creator of
    > homeopathy, charged his customers only if they got cured. But anyway, you shouldn´t expect to see
    > that fairplay these days ...
    >
    > "Alan Jacques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Sadley your right, homoeopathy is largely misunderstood. A great deal of peoples experiences
    > > stem from lay persribing such as through chemists
    and
    > > health food shops.
     
  16. Alan Jacques

    Alan Jacques Guest

    Hi again, just to address some more good points that were made.

    A classic claim of believers in magic.
    >
    > "You can't explain how anaesthetics work but they do. We can't explain how homeopathy works
    > either, therefore it does".

    I did not make the above claim in my explanation, I mostly cited clinical evidence as the main
    reason homoeopathy needs to be investigated more completely. However these are the sort of emotive
    comments that generally avoid reason that I mentioned I like to avoid. Generally they undermine
    any decent collaberation and information sharing the various medical professions might choose to
    engage in.

    Cheers -A.

    "Peter Bowditch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Alan Jacques" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Modern science still doesn't know how anaesthetic works; but they can
    show
    > >its clinical efficacy.
    >
    > A classic claim of believers in magic.
    >
    > "You can't explain how anaesthetics work but they do. We can't explain how homeopathy works
    > either, therefore it does".
    >
    > --
    > Peter Bowditch The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles The Green Light
    > http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added
    > Vitamins and
    C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  17. Alan Jacques

    Alan Jacques Guest

    The research ideas you fowarded are a good start. I think we really need to move away from
    qualitative towards quantitative methods. I'm not sure how you'd get parts of these trial ideas past
    an ethic committee though. I'm surprised you don't think there are any valid trial of homoeopathy
    out there have you read many? Granted there is more sloppy science than there should be, but
    amoungst it there are some ok ones.

    For the clinical anecdotes you require you should start talking to people who have been treated by
    a reputable homoeopath; off the top of my head I've heard or seen of the following responding
    quite quickley to treatment. malaria, herpes, bronchitis, pneumonia, mastitis, food poisoning,
    arthritis, asthma.

    Cheers -A.

    P.S. Have you ever had chronic treatment yourself?

    "Robert Bronsing" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Alan Jacques" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Just a few points....
    > >
    > >
    > > It's nonsense. Total nonsense. It's mythology," said James Randi, a
    former
    > > > magician known as the "Amazing Randi," who now runs a foundation that specializes in debunking
    > > > what he calls pseudo science.
    > >
    > > Yup this guy is obviously a well informed authority on medicine and homoeopathy.
    >
    > Maybe not, but he does seem an authority on make belief; after all, magic
    is
    > make belief.
    > >
    >
    > > "If homeopathy can be shown to work, [I'll give you] a million dollars,"
    > > > said Randi. His foundation offers that sum to anyone who can
    demonstrate
    > > any
    > > > paranormal or supernatural phenomenon works. He says that includes homeopathy.
    > >
    > > Modern science still doesn't know how anaesthetic works; but they can
    show
    > > its clinical efficacy.
    >
    > That would still be more than homeopathy can. Thus far, there have been no convincing studies
    > showing the clinical efficacy of homeopathy, despite a number of well controlled clinical trials.
    > In fact, the better the trials have been set-up, the less efficacious homeopathy seems to be.
    >
    > >
    > > To take the challenge, we checked with Ullman, who described a
    scientific
    > > > process for testing the effectiveness of homeopathy. "One way to test
    it
    > > is
    > > > by using different homeopathic doses of histamine and seeing its
    effects
    > > on
    > > > a type of white blood cells," said Ullman.
    > >
    > > These guys were testing the famous "water has memory" theory. Debunking
    > this
    > > theory does not necessarily debunk homoeopathy.
    >
    > True. It's little use trying to debunk a theory explaining an effect when that effect hasn't
    > been shown.
    >
    > > The documentary you linked was a well balanced look at both side of an old aurguement;
    > > unfortunatly
    > you
    > > omited the positive evidence that they offered in your review.
    >
    > It would be good if you could produce those positive findings here.
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > Most research methods used by what we know of as modern medicine are not effective for
    > > investigateing homoeopathy.
    >
    > Alas, this is not true although often heard. Statistics don't change
    because
    > the hypothesis is alternative, it remains the same. Granted, by its very nature, homeopathy would
    > prohibit all subjects with the same condition to recieve the same remedy, but there are ways
    > around that. What can be
    tested
    > are the tenets of homeopathy, not just one single remedy but rather, the question would be "does
    > homeopathic treatment produce different results
    from
    > nonsense (placebo) treatment?". It would involve actors (to make the patients believe they're
    > being treated by a real homeopath), homeopaths
    (to
    > actually treat a group), physicians (to asses the improvement -if any- in the patient). It takes
    > some more design in the study, but don't think it couldn't be done.
    >
    > > There is enough clinical evidence from adults, babies and animals to negate placebo effect.
    > > This alone
    > should
    > > be enough to provoke the medical community into more thorough investigations.
    >
    > It would be good if you could produce this convincing clinical evidence (clinical evidence !=
    > anecdotes).
    >
    > > Sadley however it remains that most critisisms directed at homoeopathy are emotive and political
    > > rather than scientific.
    >
    > --
    > Robert Bronsing
     
  18. "Alan Jacques" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    news:[email protected]...
    > The research ideas you fowarded are a good start. I think we really need
    to
    > move away from qualitative towards quantitative methods. I'm not sure how you'd get parts of these
    > trial ideas past an ethic committee though. I'm surprised you don't think there are any valid
    > trial of homoeopathy out
    there
    > have you read many? Granted there is more sloppy science than there should be, but amoungst it
    > there are some ok ones.

    Actually, yes. I have read a lot of trials. Note also that I didn't write not any valid trials, just
    not many. And the well designed trials that are around fail to show an effect for homeopathy. The
    problem is that there is a lot of bad quality trials around that require a lot of discussion about
    trial design to show that they are of bad quality. About the ethics committee: I think that if
    carefully designed the committee would listen, if you make sure that the pathologies treated aren't
    lifethreatning. Acupuncture was studied in a similar fashion, and that takes needles!

    >
    > For the clinical anecdotes you require you should start talking to people who have been treated by
    > a reputable homoeopath; off the top of my head
    I've
    > heard or seen of the following responding quite quickley to treatment. malaria, herpes,
    > bronchitis, pneumonia, mastitis, food poisoning,
    arthritis,
    > asthma.

    Ehm,.... when I wrote != that means "doesnot equal". The problem with anecdotes is that a) it is
    difficult to check if it actually happened the way the reporter is saying it does. People have very
    sloppy memories. And b) even if the anecdotes actually happened the way the reporter says, it's
    difficult if not impossible to relate the anecdotes to eachother since the exact circumstances are
    uncontrollable. By the way, I have spoken to many people who have been treated by homeopaths (both
    reputable and not so reputable ones) and thus far achieving succes seems an awful lot like a chance
    process ("flip a coin"). That's one of the reasons why anecdotes are pretty much useless in this
    case: too much variation in too many parameters.

    >
    > Cheers -A.
    >
    > P.S. Have you ever had chronic treatment yourself?

    Yes. However, I will not discuss that as it is irrelevant to the present discussion. (As all I would
    have to offer are anecdotes too). One request: would you mind not topposting? Topposting messes up
    the natural way people read. Thanks.

    --
    Robert Bronsing
     
  19. Baldrick

    Baldrick Guest

    Is a troll, i wouldn´t bother.
    "Alan Jacques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Mostly if the remedy has no true similarity to your condition it will have no 'purchace' in
    > your body and thus have few or no effects. To prove a remedy take a lot more remedy and a lot
    > more skill.
    >
    > Cheers -A.
    >
    >
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > BTW, since I took the "wrong" potion & no longer was "in trauma", shouldn't I have gotten some
    > > reaction to the Arnica pellets? Was I then a "healthy person" doing a unsupervised "proving"?
    > > What "symptoms" should the Arnica pellets perfhaps have invoked in me (but didn't)?
    >
     
  20. Alan Jacques

    Alan Jacques Guest

    I like your clinical trial ideas. Now only if we could get some. Regarding anecdotal evidence, I was
    more meaning that it suggests that we need to invest in some serious research, rather than as proof
    in itself. I'm sorry but I don't know what topposting is, advise me I'm new at this.

    -A.

    "Robert Bronsing" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Alan Jacques" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > The research ideas you fowarded are a good start. I think we really need
    > to
    > > move away from qualitative towards quantitative methods. I'm not sure
    how
    > > you'd get parts of these trial ideas past an ethic committee though. I'm surprised you don't
    > > think there are any valid trial of homoeopathy out
    > there
    > > have you read many? Granted there is more sloppy science than there
    should
    > > be, but amoungst it there are some ok ones.
    >
    > Actually, yes. I have read a lot of trials. Note also that I didn't write not any valid trials,
    > just not many. And the well designed trials that are around fail to show an effect for homeopathy.
    > The problem is that there is
    a
    > lot of bad quality trials around that require a lot of discussion about trial design to show that
    > they are of bad quality. About the ethics committee: I think that if carefully designed the
    > committee would listen,
    if
    > you make sure that the pathologies treated aren't lifethreatning. Acupuncture was studied in a
    > similar fashion, and that takes needles!
    >
    >
    > >
    > > For the clinical anecdotes you require you should start talking to
    people
    > > who have been treated by a reputable homoeopath; off the top of my head
    > I've
    > > heard or seen of the following responding quite quickley to treatment. malaria, herpes,
    > > bronchitis, pneumonia, mastitis, food poisoning,
    > arthritis,
    > > asthma.
    >
    > Ehm,.... when I wrote != that means "doesnot equal". The problem with anecdotes is that a) it is
    > difficult to check if it actually happened the way the reporter is saying it does. People have
    > very sloppy memories. And
    b)
    > even if the anecdotes actually happened the way the reporter says, it's difficult if not
    > impossible to relate the anecdotes to eachother since the exact circumstances are uncontrollable.
    > By the way, I have spoken to many people who have been treated by homeopaths (both reputable and
    > not so reputable ones) and thus far achieving succes seems an awful lot like a chance process
    > ("flip a coin"). That's one of the reasons why anecdotes
    are
    > pretty much useless in this case: too much variation in too many
    parameters.
    >
    > >
    > > Cheers -A.
    > >
    > > P.S. Have you ever had chronic treatment yourself?
    >
    > Yes. However, I will not discuss that as it is irrelevant to the present discussion. (As all I
    > would have to offer are anecdotes too). One request: would you mind not topposting? Topposting
    > messes up the
    natural
    > way people read. Thanks.
    >
    > --
    > Robert Bronsing
     
Loading...