'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated by canttakesky

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Link to original paper here

http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf

What I find weakens the argument is the disregard for the effect on so-called structured water due to the biological system it encounters. If ppm solutions can display structures, how much more of an effect on water will the biological system have ? Sorry, but without that explanation, it comes down to voodoo. Supposedly the homeopathic voodoo of a small sample is far stronger than the much larger and far more concentrated biological voodoo it encounters.

Nah.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:11 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Hey, if these guys believe in man caused global warming, ya can't blame them for buying into this pile of go se.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Sorry, but without that explanation, it comes down to voodoo.

Thanks for finding the paper.

There are a lot of unanswered questions in the mechanistic / naturalistic paradigm. Yet unknown mechanisms aren't a valid basis for dismissing an entire theory as "voodoo."

For example, how did the Universe start? Someone could say, I'm sorry, but without that explanation, the entire theory of evolution is just voodoo. That response doesn't make sense.

What Roy is saying is that the structure of inorganic water CAN be influenced by ultradiluted chemicals in ppm or ppb or pptrillion. He is simply establishing that this effect can exist. Now what causes these structures to change? Do they always change? What forms these structures in one solution and not in another? Those are completely different research question yet to be investigated.

But just because they haven't yet been investigated doesn't nullify his existing findings.

Regarding your concerns, the reason homeopathic water ultradiluted with chemicals is different from non-homeopathic water ultradiluted with chemicals is the action of "succussion" (banging). Hahnemann discovered that banging the solutions systematically while diluting it retains some of the chemical properties of the solute, whereas not banging the solutions results in simply ultradilutions. This explains why not ALL water is a homeopathic remedy--because no other water (inorganic or organic) is succussed while being systematically diluted.

I don't have time now, but I will post a reference of a study published in Nature that confirms Hahnemann's findings.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:00 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And then it goes into your stomach where it's repeatedly churned up with lots and lots of other chemicals. And still retains its "memory".

Er...... maybe (in a very quiet and doubtful voice).

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:11 AM

http://br.geocities.com/criticandokardec/benveniste01.pdf

IgE antibodies degranulate human basophils. Benveniste reported that in his four double-blind experiments, IgE antibodies, diluted and succussed up to 10 to the 120th, were able to degranulate human basophils. In fact, he found that as the dilution increased, the more degranulation took place. [Read the Editorial note at the end of his paper.]

Nature followed up with a report that the results were not replicated. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v366/n6455/abs/366525a0.html

However, the effects have been replicated, just published in lesser known journals.

This paper reviewed the literature and found the same effects. http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/3/1/13
The authors say the effects across the literature are not as consistent as necessary to be generally accepted, but more research should be encouraged to tease out the confounders.

Now just to be clear, I am not saying this is scientific proof of anything. I am saying that there is some published laboratory evidence to support Hahnemann's observations, so they shouldn't be dismissed categorically as impossible. Obviously, much more research needs to be done. Roy is doing some of it, adding to a small, but growing body of evidence that homeopathy is NOT impossible.

[Edited to add:]Now we just need to research under which circumstances is homeopathy possible. Why does it work sometimes and not others? Why does it work in some places better than others?

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:43 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"For example, how did the Universe start? Someone could say, I'm sorry, but without that explanation, the entire theory of evolution is just voodoo."

This is like saying just b/c we don't know how nuclear materials 'decide' to decay we can't understand how an IC engine works.

In other words, one has nothing to do with the other.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In other words, one has nothing to do with the other.

I forget, you take things so literally.

Just change the question to, "How did life start?"

The point remains the same, whether you nitpick the details of the example or not.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:56 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just change the question to, "How did life start?"

The point remains the same, whether you nitpick the details of the example or not.

While we're nitpicking...how life started also has no bearing on evolution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:57 AM

Hey- if it works do we really have to know HOW it does?

I'll join ya in the Homeopathic Pride Parade....

Homeostasis Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:02 AM

Quote:
While we're nitpicking...how life started also has no bearing on evolution.

In the view of some, if you can't explain this aspect of the origins of life (or the originas of the universe), then the entire theory falls apart.

My point is that it is an invalid argument. Just because you can't explain one piece of the puzzle doesn't mean the rest of what we know is hogwash.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hey- if it works do we really have to know HOW it does?

I gave a friend a remedy for her urinary tract infection 2 days ago. This is her 5th infection. The previous 4 times, it lasted about 2 months. This time, it has gone on for 3 weeks already. Upon the first dose, the pain improved within minutes, then disappeared for 10 hours. She took a second dose, and it disappeared completely. It's been over 24 hours and hasn't come back yet.

Maybe it's voodoo, or placebo, or magic. Whatever you call it, it works. Now, it would be VERY nice is we could figure out WHY and HOW it works with good laboratory research. I'd really like to know more, like what makes it work better sometimes than others.

But bad research or no research at all doesn't negate the fact that it does work. It is the old fallacy that "absence of evidence (in specific journals) equals evidence of absence."

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:08 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just looking for logic in the argument and finding it .... gone.

But to get to your example, it still doesn't hold up, even as amended. B/c while there is no evidence to date for 'how' life happened, there's all sorts of evidence for 'how' evolution did.

In the specific instance of homeopathy, there is very little evidence 'that' it works at all, from independent double-blind controlled studies. I don't dismiss anecdotal evidence, but I've seen a lot more anecdotal evidence for standard medicine than for homeopathy, which still puts standard medicine ahead in the race.

In addition, the ability of water to form subtle structures which may be potentially considered supportive, hasn't been shown to occur where it needs to occur - in the body. B/c the mechanism purported for dilute solutions will also act within the body for things like ATP, ADP, NAD and NADP and their 'H' forms etc - all those separate unique little molecules that each exist in ppm levels in the body.

Degranulation follows a well known biological activity curve for enzymatically or hormonally active substances. At very low levels they have the highest per unit activity, whereas at higher levels they have a biological feedback mechanism that cuts off activity.

OVERALL - and I hope you read to the end - I put homeopathy in the 'undecided' category. I would certainly try it for whatever good effect it might have (even if placebo), or if nothing else worked - I'll even try prayer in those cases. But I wouldn't rely solely on it in a serious situation.

***************************************************************
Consider me a shifty-eyed pagan - making the sign of the cross with one hand and warding off the evil eye with the other. I'll throw in with whatever local god seems to be holding sway at the moment. Or if needs be, I'll tribute as many as I can.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
B/c while there is no evidence to date for 'how' life happened, there's all sorts of evidence for 'how' evolution did.

Sigh. Fine. For argument's sake, how does that negate my point that just because you don't have all the answers doesn't mean the answers you DO have (however few there are) are meaningless?

Quote:
In the specific instance of homeopathy, there is very little evidence 'that' it works at all, from independent double-blind controlled studies.

Because very few independent double-blind studies have been done, period. And those few that have been done have inherent design flaws from an inadequate understanding of how homeopathy is supposed to work.

For example, they test homeopathy using the same model as allopathy: one medicine per diagnosis. So they give the same homeopathic remedy to everyone who has the flu, and it doesn't work in most of them. But homeopathy doesn't prescribe by diagnosis. It prescribes by the whole individual picture. So it could very well be that all those subjects would have been prescribed different remedies for the same flu.

A better design would be to test the effectiveness of one particular homeopath, rather than one particular remedy. Have subjects with the flu be treated by one homeopath. Then give half those subjects (randomly picked) a placebo, and half of them their prescribed remedies. In addition, control with similar flu patients treated allopathically (also half of them given placebos). And double-blind the whole thing. Then you can compare homeopathic effectiveness with allopathic effectiveness, and homeopathic placebo with allopathic placebo in a homogenous population.

Quote:
but I've seen a lot more anecdotal evidence for standard medicine than for homeopathy, which still puts standard medicine ahead in the race.

Again, could that be because there is very little data (anecdotal or otherwise) on homeopathy to begin with? Standard medicine's got a hell of a head start if it is a race.

Quote:
In addition, the ability of water to form subtle structures which may be potentially considered supportive, hasn't been shown to occur where it needs to occur - in the body.

Huh? It goes into the body already structured.

Quote:
B/c the mechanism purported for dilute solutions will also act within the body for things like ATP...

The mechanism purported for making dilutions bioactive is succussions. Again, there is no succussion going on in the body, so diluting ATP will not yield the same results.

Quote:
At very low levels they have the highest per unit activity, whereas at higher levels they have a biological feedback mechanism that cuts off activity.

That's interesting. But back to the point, that means where degranulation occured, there were "low levels" or equivalent. Low levels where people are saying there are no levels at all.

Quote:
I put homeopathy in the 'undecided' category. I would certainly try it for whatever good effect it might have (even if placebo) but I wouldn't rely on it in a serious situation.

Fair enough. I *am* relying on it in a serious situation--for my son. Incidentally, he is 3 now, eating everything except for milk and eggs, at 10th percentile and climbing slowly. He has some eczema that flares up now and then and is a little behind in his speech, but is otherwise symptom free. This is a long way from screaming in pain continuously, vomiting/ swelling after any and all foods, and not gaining any weight for 9 months.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:49 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
but I've seen a lot more anecdotal evidence for standard medicine than for homeopathy, which still puts standard medicine ahead in the race.
Again, could that be because there is very little data (anecdotal or otherwise) on homeopathy to begin with? Standard medicine's got a hell of a head start if it is a race.

I'd have to disagree, most of the methods and knowledge that go into modern medicine are younger than homeopathy. The only way that "standard" medicine would have a head start is if you consider all non-homeopathic medicine, which since most of the methods that were contemporary to homeopathy are obsolete isn't really valid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It would be interesting to try homeopathy the way you suggested. I would address one detail thus-wise - since 'placebos' seem to be very hard to make in homeopathy, I would suggest subjects be given a non-related homeopathic solution.

There is succussion going on in the body all the time. At the place where ATP is made, for example, the concentrations are quite high. Progressive dilution takes place over space - away from the source. Overall concentrations are quite low.

I'm glad about your son. I will admit to reservations b/c the story is not yet over. Not to be a wet blanket but I've had to learn in my own family to have to wait years - even decades - for the fallout.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
most of the methods and knowledge that go into modern medicine are younger than homeopathy.

Younger doesn't mean less. Standard medicine is better financed, better funded for research, and better published by far.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:01 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

FredG

I think I get your point. The problem with - I don't know - let's call it 'ancient medicine' and the new stuff 'modern medicine' - the problem with 'ancient medicine' is that people died in large numbers. Along comes a plague, or individual pneumonia, or diabetes, and people fell like stones. And then a lot of ancient medicine was herbal and ritual, not homeopathy. Homeopathy as a separate entity has a modern origin.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There is succussion going on in the body all the time.

What? Succussion doesn't mean progressive dilution. It is an abrupt mechanical force applied to the solution. People do it by banging the bottle of solution from a distance of about 2 feet on a firm, but flexible surface (such as a leather bound book). This sort of banging doesn't happen in the body.

Quote:
I'm glad about your son. I will admit to reservations b/c the story is not yet over.

Thank you. You're right, the story isn't over, and it is too early to celebrate. I do have hope though, because I just heard of another boy with the exact same symptoms treated by homeopathy. He is now 10 years old, of normal size and weight, and healthy. Fingers crossed!

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:06 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fingers crossed for your son - me too. (Weird, that's another old ritual ...)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:08 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
most of the methods and knowledge that go into modern medicine are younger than homeopathy.
Younger doesn't mean less. Standard medicine is better financed, better funded for research, and better published by far.

True, but this brings up another point, there's no reason why homeopaths can't do a study like the one you suggested, it doesn't seem like it would be particularly expensive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:10 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
For example, how did the Universe start? Someone could say, I'm sorry, but without that explanation, the entire theory of evolution is just voodoo. That response doesn't make sense.

As Fred says, and as we've been through on another thread - evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of anything. By definition. The origin of the universe and of life is a whole different puzzle than how organisms change over time to fit their environment.

As for homeopathy, I can't even begin to have the mental facilities to sort out that paper now. But I'm willing to give homeopathy a chance - not based on the amazing powers of extremely dilute something or another (that's all I was able to get out of it for the moment) but because of the power of the human mind. Placebo can do wonders. Focusing your brain's attention can do wonders.

For example, I've done reiki, and been amazed. Is it the powers of the universe focused through another person's hands, or is it my own mind being encouraged to focus on my body? I don't know. Frankly, I don't care. It works, it makes me feel good, and I don't need to mess with it.

If it's working for your son - Yay! (Really -

!!! That's wonderful.) Go with it, I say.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
since 'placebos' seem to be very hard to make in homeopathy, I would suggest subjects be given a non-related homeopathic solution.

Oh no. Homeopathic solutions look like water, taste like water. Period. It would be VERY easy to make a placebo. Give them water without the remedy. The remedies themselves are sugar globules with the active ingredient diluted in them. It would also be very easy to make sugar globules without the homeopathic ingredient. Then you'd have literal placebos.

Giving them a different homeopathic solution isn't a good idea. A incorrectly prescribed homeopathic remedy can cause transient symptoms. It can make things worse.

I once unknowingly gave my daughter my remedy by mistake. All of a sudden, she collapse to the floor and said, "Mom, I can't walk!" She became too weak to get up off the floor and lay there for about 1.5 hours. Then she retuned to normal. My remedy included my past history of Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome and inability to walk due to severe weakness. Given to her, it caused the same symptoms. When I went to the remedy bottles again, I realized I had grabbed the wrong bottle for her. Fortunately, I've never heard of these "aggravations" being anything more than very transient.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You're right about succussion - my mistake. But since it is serial dilution that's been shown to produce small amounts of water structure - not succussion - perhaps serial dilution is the more relevant process.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:uX8YRxJeQ8gJ:en.wikipedia.org/wik
i/Homeopathy+ Succussion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
"However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo." I realize GIGO but I've come to appreciate the power of meta-analysis in finding trends.

Another thing that was pointed out here is that homeopathy has been tried on animals (with poor results). Duh to me. If you're going to try to rule out the placebo effect double-blind studies on animals is the way to go.

"It would be VERY easy to make a placebo." Since homeopathy works by creating very dilute solutions, it would be hard to get an 'uncontaminated' one. That's what I was referring to. So maybe the process would be to control the contamination. (B/c my work involves measuring and creating ppb and pptrillion solutions, I have concrete experience in how tough it is to make a 'blank'.)

***************************************************************
In any case, at this point it still comes down to voodoo. Without those extensive double blind animal studies, and looking at existing meta-analysis, the trend is showing a placebo effect. The proposed mode of action (dilution according to Rustum Roy) doesn't match up with the practice, and it's also self-contradicted by internal biology. This god appears to me to be a minor one and not worthy of much tribute.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I've come to appreciate the power of meta-analysis in finding trends.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697022939/
fulltext
"The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homoeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic."

Not that I am a big fan of silly medical statistics like odds ratios, but if you want to compare apples to apples, there it is.

There is another meta-analysis:
Kleijnen, J., P. Knipschild, and G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homeopathy," British Medical Journal, 302:316-323 (1991).

The BMJ website appears to be down, so I can't get a link.

Both studies make the point that the body of existing literature suggests homeopathic effects exceed those of placebo. Maybe not by much, but enough that it is not fair to dismiss it as mere placebo. It deserves more research.

Quote:
Another thing that was pointed out here is that homeopathy has been tried on animals (with poor results). Duh to me. If you're going to try to rule out the placebo effect double-blind studies on animals is the way to go.

There have been successful studies on animals. Can't do it now, but I'll find you a reference or two later.

Quote:
it would be hard to get an 'uncontaminated' one.

You're not getting it, Rue. Homeopathic remedies are not regular dilutions. The KEY to remedies is not dilutions, but succussions. Succussion doesn't happen in nature. It is unique to homeopathic preparation.

Hahnemann initially tried to dilute active ingredients to minimize side effects. He found that the more he diluted, the less active or "potent" it was. No surprise there. Then he stumbled upon the key to homeopathy. He found that if he banged the solution as he diluted it, the succusions retains the potency of the active ingredient, while the dilution got rid of the side effects. Without succussing while diluting, a solution has no potency. It's just contaminated water, which is easily used as a placebo.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:00 AM

LOL, Rue, the homeophobe.....

Some of my best friends are dilutions Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Sigh, CTS haven't we been through this before with the polio vaccine ? Where you deliberately find the weak and unsupported studies and skip past the good ones ? Just b/c you 'like' them better ?

Here is the one you avoided posting ...

BACKGROUND: Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible. Bias in the conduct and reporting of trials is a possible explanation for positive findings of trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. We analysed trials of homoeopathy and conventional medicine and estimated treatment effects in trials least likely to be affected by bias. METHODS: Placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy were identified by a comprehensive literature search, which covered 19 electronic databases, reference lists of relevant papers, and contacts with experts. Trials in conventional medicine matched to homoeopathy trials for disorder and type of outcome were randomly selected from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 1, 2003). Data were extracted in duplicate and outcomes coded so that odds ratios below 1 indicated benefit. Trials described as double-blind, with adequate randomisation, were assumed to be of higher methodological quality. Bias effects were examined in funnel plots and meta-regression models. FINDINGS: 110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed. The median study size was 65 participants (range ten to 1573). 21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. When the analysis was restricted to large trials of higher quality, the odds ratio was 0.88 (95% CI 0.65-1.19) for homoeopathy (eight trials) and 0.58 (0.39-0.85) for conventional medicine (six trials). INTERPRETATION: Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

***************************************************************
At this point you're pissing me off. I hate people who lie and mislead.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And to separate this point out form the previous '

"The KEY to remedies is not dilutions, but succussions."

Is that what Roy found ? No, he found the opposite. So should I skip your entire first post as being irrelevant to your own argument ? You tell me.

***************************************************************
Logic is sometimes more useful when it's bent and twisted, isn't it ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects

But, I mean, isn't a placebo effect a good thing?
If the mind believes the body is getting better, it releases endorphins, produces more white blood and T-cells, allows greater and freer blood flow...

Chrisisall, who believes his pizza cures colds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:39 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hey- if it works do we really have to know HOW it does?

I'll join ya in the Homeopathic Pride Parade....

Homeostasis Chrisisall

I use a homeopathic ointment for shoulder pain sometimes but I wouldn't admit it in public. Does that make me a closet Homeopath?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:42 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Chris,IsAll

I'll go with anything that works. But I wouldn't bet my life on a placebo effect.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hi Chris,IsAll

I'll go with anything that works. But I wouldn't bet my life on a placebo effect.

Yeah, it's not so effective with strokes or major lacerations...

A man's got to know his limits Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Is that what Roy found ?

Roy wasn't making homeopathic remedies, so he didn't use the key to homeopathic remedies.

Quote:
Where you deliberately find the weak and unsupported studies and skip past the good ones ?

Yes, we've been through this.

Studies often report findings equivocally. They find a result, and then they have to decide how to interpret them. Usually, they interpret in the mainstream (helps them get published, so I don't blame them). What I do is I look for FACTS that support my positions. I overlook their pro-mainstream interpretations, cause, well, that's what they are going to do. Just because they decide one thing or another doesn't make my FACT untrue.

What is the main finding of this study? The FACT that the overall odds ratio exceeds that of placebo. Were there other FACTS in the study? Sure, but I am not going to quote them since they are irrelevant to the point I am making which is: this meta-analysis found that the effects of homeopathy exceeded those of placebo, and the field deserves more research.

Now you can quote all the other findings and rhetoric you want, but I am not at fault that they are irrelevant to the point *I* was making.

BTW, I don't see YOU quoting studies that make MY points for me either.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:57 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Roy wasn't making homeopathic remedies, so he didn't use the key to homeopathic remedies." In other words, your first post was completely irrelevant. Good. Got it.

MY god CTS, you'd say black is white if you wanted to believe it. Here's the conclusion from the BEST meta-analysis available - read it carefully:

This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:26 PM

And you get to decide which is the BEST meta-analysis, do you? I offered a different finding. I didn't lie. Take it or leave it.

Now about Roy and succussions. I must admit, I responded rather hastily. Here is a better thought out response.

Roy's paper is concerned about the plausibility of remedies being different from "normal" water. He asserts: 1) the structure of water can be changed regardless of the content of the water, 2) the structure of solvents can be imprinted with the solute through epitaxy under pressure, and 3) the structure of water can plausibly be altered with succussions acting as pressure.

Quote:
There is no doubt that under the “normal” succussing procedures, very respectable pressures (say in the 10 kbar range) can be generated on the different size water droplets which result from the shaking. Reasoning from analogy with such similar liquids, there will, no doubt, be many different structures of water formed both by the pressures generated in succussing and in some combination with the epitaxy on any additives...

There is no question of the plausibility of pressure induced changes during succusion. Such changes are well known in solid H2O, and Kawamoto has shown at least one phase boundary in liquid water at modest pressures [22]. Likewise the plausibility of nanobubble formation is obvious. The question is whether they can survive.

So, in summary, he DID take succusions into consideration and DID use it as the basis for his argument for changing the structure of water. Water structure doesn't change simply from getting a solute or being diluted.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
At this point you're pissing me off. I hate people who lie and mislead.

Well, then it is time for our conversation to end. Good day.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yeah, it's not so effective with strokes or major lacerations...

You might be surprised.

There is a book called "Impossible Cure" by Amy Lansky, PhD. She is a Stanford educated computer scientist whose son's autism was cured with homeopathy. She was so impressed she left her Silicon Valley job and became a homeopath. (And wrote her book.)

One of the last chapters of her books details story after story of homeopathic cures. Stuff I didn't know was possible was in there. Severe hemorrhage from a rupture ectopic pregnancy, a serious heart attack, fingers that appeared to be fractured, kidney failure, ejection of a 4 lb cancerous tumor, HIV positive to HIV negative, severe arsenic poisoning, even a piece of embedded glass... the list goes on.

The problem with homeopathy and serious emergency conditions is this. The tools of homeopathy are incredible, but very few people know how to use them. There are over 1000 remedies produced by pharmacies. If you pick the wrong one, it won't do a thing--might even make things worse. If you are in a hurry and don't know what you're doing, you might die before finding the right remedy.

But if you do know what you're doing, it's pretty amazing.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"And you get to decide which is the BEST meta-analysis, do you?"
No. I took the word of statisticians. And you ?

"I offered a different finding. I didn't lie. Take it or leave it."
Yeah, that's the true scientific spirit. Always ready for new, more accurate data.

"There is no doubt that under the “normal” succussing procedures, very respectable pressures (say in the 10 kbar range) ..."
So, this was in your first post ? Nah. I can still safely ignore it right ? Just as I thought.

"Reasoning from analogy ... plausibility of pressure induced changes ... the plausibility of nanobubble formation " and the piece de resistance - "The question is whether they can survive." So he goes from plausible to definite in one unstated gap, and from definite to debating the properties. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? It's like that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
You might be surprised.

There's still room in my 'verse for that...
My Wife had some bad neck pain, and a guy put some tiny needles into her back and neck and temple and stuff and it magically went away- can traditional medical science explain chakra points?

Open-minded Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 5:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
can traditional medical science explain chakra points?

Actually, an orthopedic surgeon named Robert Becker did some very interesting research on that. He measured electrical fields in the human body and found that they corresponded very closely to acupuncture meridians. He hypothesized that the mechanism behind acupuncture may actually be electromagnetic.

He did a lot of research on how tiny nanocurrents can trigger regeneration in non-regenerative animals, including frogs and rats. So you don't need a lot of electromagnetic influence to effect significant changes in biological systems.

The electromagnetic aspect of the human body is one that very few researchers have addressed. I think it is the future of medicine myself. In fact, I speculate that homeopathic remedies work electromagnetically as well based on what I've read.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 5:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

The electromagnetic aspect of the human body is one that very few researchers have addressed. I think it is the future of medicine myself. In fact, I speculate that homeopathic remedies work electromagnetically as well based on what I've read.

Do you have an AMA article to back up that belief?

Remember: it's not real until someone who gets paid to regurgitate a $100,000 medical education says so.

Medical anarchist Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 6:18 AM

Becker's articles are here.

Am J Chin Med 1979 Summer;7(2):188-93. Laplace plane analysis of impedance on the H meridian.
Reichmanis M, Marino AA, Becker RO.

Comp Med East West 1978 Spring;6(1):67-73. Physiological effects of stimulation at acupuncture loci: a review. Reichmanis M, Becker RO.

Not JAMA, but I just did a quick search in PubMed and found 111 articles on this topic in the last 50 years. So Becker has a tiny amount of corroboration.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Link&LinkName=p
ubmed_pubmed&from_uid=710080

But since these aren't AMA publications, obviously they don't count.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky, M.D.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 7:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

One interesting thing about acupuncture - it's been tried on animals. Another interesting thing - experiments have been done on 'real' v 'sham' acupuncture - where the needles are inserted any old place - and they are equally effective - which is neither is 100%, but each partly works. So while there is evidence it works to some extent, there's evidence that it doesn't work the way people say it does.

***************************************************************
Reality-based Rue,isall.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 7:26 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And again I need to point out that CTS has managed to portray me as some anti-alternative medical Nazi. Shame on anyone for believing that crap.

What I DON'T believe is the complete line that CTS posts and that people eat up despite obvious fraud in her arguments.

So CTS , congratulations. You've managed to turn yourself into a innocent martyr one more time. At my and reality's expense, I might add. I have concern for your children b/c they are TRULY innocent and at risk of being REAL victims. But as for you, at this point I have no concern at all. I truly hope your crackpot ideas and dishonest ways get you everything you deserve.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 7:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So CTS , congratulations. You've managed to turn yourself into a innocent martyr one more time. At my and reality's expense, I might add. I have concern for your children b/c they are TRULY innocent and at risk of being REAL victims. But as for you, at this point I have no concern at all. I truly hope your crackpot ideas and dishonest ways get you everything you deserve.

My mouth is agape.

Rue, you often make good points, and I am interested in talking with you. However, everytime I do, you end up hurling venemous invectives at me that you pull OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS.

I refused to respond to you for a time, but since you hadn't been nasty in a while, I decided to give you another chance. And here you are, accusing me of fraud and lies and dishonesty. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I have tried, and tried, and tried to be civil to you. But this is it. You don't fucking deserve it. I am through talking to you.
--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 7:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AWESOME !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 9:07 AM