Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Moopet posted this link:"
    What's the harm in homeopathy?

    Thoughts?......................................... .................................................. ............................


    Moopet You really want to play that game?

    Here is a few great links to get you started since YOU POSTED A LINK ASWELL.The History of modern day medicine (allopathic,conventional medicine)

    It's stained with death from the day it was marketed.

    Your link is Invalid because it's based on rhetoric from someones Blog-its obviously a person with an anti-homeopathy agenda.ANyone can blog,anyone with "0" knowledge regards Homeopathy..............................

    What scientist goes by these blogs,Is this your HOLYGRAIL Moopet?

    Is this where you get your information from................................thats sad!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Death by Medicine
    </SPAN>By Gary Null, Ph.D., PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD
    [back] Extracts
    ABSTRACTTable 1: Estimated Annual Mortality and Economic Cost of Medical Intervention
    Table 2: Estimated Annual Mortality and Economic Cost of Medical Intervention
    Table 3: Estimated 10-Year Death Rates from Medical Intervention
    Table 4: Estimated 10-Year Unnecessary Medical Events
    INTRODUCTION
    Is American Medicine Working?
    Underreporting of Iatrogenic EventsMedical Ethics and Conflict of Interest in Scientific Medicine
    THE FIRST IATROGENIC STUDY
    ONLY A FRACTION OF MEDICAL ERRORS ARE REPORTED
    PUBLIC SUGGESTIONS ON IATROGENESIS
    DRUG IATROGENESIS
    Medication Errors
    Recent Adverse Drug Reactions
    Medicating Our Feelings
    Television Diagnosis
    How Do We Know Drugs Are Safe?
    Specific Drug Iatrogenesis: Antibiotics
    The Problem with Antibiotics
    Cesarean Section
    NEVER ENOUGH STUDIES
    ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS
    BEDSORES
    MALNUTRITION IN NURSING HOMES
    Nosocomial Infections
    Outpatient Iatrogenesis
    Unnecessary Surgeries
    MEDICAL ERRORS: A GLOBAL ISSUE
    HEALTH INSURANCE
    WAREHOUSING OUR ELDERS
    Overmedicating Seniors
    WHAT REMAINS TO BE UNCOVERED
    Appendix: OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (OTA)
    General Facts
    Hospitals
    Health-Related Research and Development
    Pharmaceutical and Medical-Device Industries
    Health Care Technology Assessment
    Examples of Lack of Proper Management of HealthCare
    Treatments for Coronary Artery Disease
    Computed Tomography (CT)
    Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
    Laparoscopic Surgery
    Infant Mortality
    Screening for Breast Cancer
    Summary
    References
    ABSTRACT A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million.1 Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number
    "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Gina View Post
      Moopet You really want to play that game?
      You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, you do not respond to straight questions, you claim a double standard of evidence and do not like getting told you're wrong.

      There is no point in talking to you.

      I will only respond to your posts again when you have the courtesy to respond to mine.

      I do, however, hope other members of this site read these threads and see how dishonest the posts are.

      Comment


      • #63
        Moopet you posted:"these threads and see how dishonest the posts are............................................... ........................"

        Dishonest? How So? Sorry you think so............Who is the one presenting bloged information,that has nothing to do with facts.Sorry I have burts your bubble.
        In turn:
        I have posted many links for you to seek further information,homeopathy is a verry complex subject- most likely not a subject for the average shortsighted skeptic.Do You realize the years it takes of study to be a Homeopath? You confront the issue like you know it well,what is your background in homeopathy/holistic medicine/any medicine?
        Please answer----------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sadly this forum has NO onsite moderator,so skeptics like you can post nonesense without being banned.

        Try posting your rhetoric- anti homeopathic dialogue in another forum like Homeopathy = Hpathy, Homeopathic Medicines Homeopathy Remedies, Treatments & More!

        Your posts will come to a halt within a few days if not sooner.Moderators there do not allow skeptics (anti homeopaths) to post. This type of circular static posting is extremely disruptive to the homeopathic community.
        "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

        Comment


        • #64
          allopathy or homeopathy?
          PART1-
          • In 1994, an estimated 2,216,000 (1,721,000 to 2,711,000) hospitalized patients had serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and 106,000 (76,000 to 137,000) had fatal ADRs, making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death.
          • Fatal ADRs accounted for 0.32 percent (95 percent confidence interval (CI), 0.23 percent to 0.41 percent) of hospitalized patients.
          JAMA April 15, 1998;279(15):1200-5
          BMC Nephrol. December 22, 2003
          • Medication-related problems (MRP) continue to occur at a high rate in ambulatory hemodialysis (HD) patients.
          • Medication-dosing problems (33.5 percent), adverse drug reactions (20.7 percent), and an indication that was not currently being treated (13.5 percent) were the most common MRP.
          • 5,373 medication orders were reviewed and a MRP was identified every 15.2 medication exposures.
          Nurs Times. December 9-15, 2003;99(49):24-5.
          • In 2002, 16,176 adverse drug reaction reports were received, of which 67 percent related to reactions categorized as 'serious.'
          Pharm World Sci. December, 2003;25(6):264-8.
          • Medication administration errors (MAEs) were observed in two departments of a hospital for 20 days.
          • The medication administration error rate was 14.9 percent. Dose errors were the most frequent (41 percent) errors, followed by wrong time (26 percent) and wrong rate errors. Ten percent of errors were estimated as potentially life-threatening, 26 percent potentially significant and 64 percent potentially minor.
          Serious and Fatal Drug Reactions in US Hospitals
          • Drug-related morbidity and mortality have been estimated to cost more that $136 billion a year in United States. These estimates are higher than the total cost of cardiovascular care or diabetes care in the United States. A major component of these costs is adverse drug reactions (ADE).
          Am J Med August 1, 2000;109(2):122-30
          • About 0.05 percent of all hospital admissions were certainly or probably drug-related.
          • Incidence figures based on death certificates only may seriously underestimate the true incidence of fatal adverse drug reactions.
          Eur J Clin Pharmacol October, 2002;58(7):479-82
          • In one study of 200 patients, ADRs may have contributed to the deaths of two (one percent) patients.





























          "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

          Comment


          • #65
            Part 2
            Linda Johnston, MD, DHt - "The early 1800's was a time of great transition in medicine. Whereas the standard, allopathic form of treatment was dominant at the turn of that century, that was not to last. The two most popular alternatives to the orthodox practice were herbal medicine and Homeopathy. Mothers treating their children's problems easily and inexpensively caused the news of Homeopathy to spread like a brush fire. Many people successfully treated typhoid, cholera, measles, mumps, tuberculosis, smallpox and other diseases with their Homeopathic remedies and without doctors.

            The rise of Homeopathy particularly coincided with a dramatic decline in the prestige of allopathic medicine and its methods. There was a general and pervasive disdain and mistrust of allopathic medicine.

            As a consequence, extreme hatred and economic jealousy was aroused in the allopaths. These economic concerns were well documented."
            Historically, homeopathy has proven many times to be more effective than allopathic medicine in the treatment and prevention of disease, with risk of harmful side effects.

            In a U.S. cholera outbreak in 1849, allopathic medicine saw a 48-60% death rate, while homeopathic hospitals had a documented death rate of only 3%.

            Roughly similar statistics still hold true for cholera today. Recent epidemiological studies show homeopathic remedies as equaling or surpassing standard vaccinations in preventing disease.

            There are reports in which populations that were treated homeopathically after exposure had a 100% success rate-none of the treated caught the disease. During the epidemic of yellow fever in the southern States in 18.78, the allopaths treated 96,187 cases, of which 12,296 died; a death rate of 23.b.

            At the same time the homoeopathic practitioners treated 3914 cases of the same disease, of which 261 died; a death rate of 6.6. In many of the southern States, by means of unjust medical legislation, the allopaths have obtained sole control, and they refuse to permit homeopaths to practice. This accounts for the great disparity in the numbers treated.
            PREVENTION AND TREATMENT WITH HOMEOPATHY (VACCINE-FREE )
            Homeopathy has been successfully used to prevent and cure smallpox
            Homeopathy for Healing Diseases/Conditions

            Homeopathy on the Internet - An In-depth Guide to the Best Sites and Articles

            Homeopathy and the Flu how homeopathy can help with the flu.



            Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) - how homeopathy can help
            After 200 years, homeopathy is re-emerging as a major healing approach during this era of a degenerative disease epidemic and theresurgence of infectious
            "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by moopet View Post
              Placebo controls are necessary because there is a placebo effect.
              Showing that you are better than placebo, which in turn may be better than nothing, is better than showing you are better than nothing, which may not be better than placebo. Placebo is, to all intents, the standard for biochemical "nothing", because it's helping to rule out psychological effects.
              It's the best we can do, isn't it?
              No. We have homeopathy.

              A competent homeopath will have an 80% success rate for everything across the board that walks into her clinic. From anxiety to arthritis to asthma to alpoecia.

              You accept then, that pharmaceutical medicines, with all their toxic and dangerous side effects, not to mention their very great expense, are only marginally better than 'biochemical nothing' when it comes to the treatment of disease?

              Given that 'biochemical nothing' is such a wide variable do RDBPCTs show anything at all?

              Sim
              These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                No. We have homeopathy.

                A competent homeopath will have an 80% success rate for everything across the board that walks into her clinic. From anxiety to arthritis to asthma to alpoecia.
                That is contested. It is not fact, and goes against the evidence of repeated trials. The majority of evidence supporting homeopathy is found in poorly designed biased trials. Or so the links here would suggest. I can make a statement saying that my sugar pills cure acne too.

                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                You accept then, that pharmaceutical medicines, with all their toxic and dangerous side effects, not to mention their very great expense, are only marginally better than 'biochemical nothing' when it comes to the treatment of disease?
                Where did I say that?

                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                Given that 'biochemical nothing' is such a wide variable do RDBPCTs show anything at all?

                Sim
                Yes. Well, to qualify that, it depends. Some RDBPCTs demonstrate a substance's effects to a high degree. Some to a lower degree. This means that such a substance is, on average, very effective or slightly effective. If it demonstrates that the substance is not effective, then that substance is understood to be not effective.

                1 = 1.
                What's your point?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by moopet View Post
                  That is contested. It is not fact, and goes against the evidence of repeated trials. The majority of evidence supporting homeopathy is found in poorly designed biased trials. Or so the links here would suggest. I can make a statement saying that my sugar pills cure acne too.
                  Why so much faith in RDBPCT's? Why insist on an experiment that fails to rigorously test the specific hypothesis? We could go on like this for ever...

                  To quote you Moopet:

                  Originally posted by moopet View Post
                  This is not how science works.[/URL]"
                  Perhaps you have not fully understood my previous posts to this thread. You have yet to respond to many of my questions. I believe I have responded to all of yours.



                  Originally posted by moopet View Post

                  Where did I say that?
                  Originally posted by moopet View Post
                  Showing that you are better than placebo, which in turn may be better than nothing, is better than showing you are better than nothing...It's the best we can do, isn't it?



                  Originally posted by moopet View Post

                  ....Some RDBPCTs demonstrate a substance's effects to a high degree. Some to a lower degree. This means that such a substance is, on average, very effective or slightly effective.....

                  1 = 1.
                  What's your point?
                  Effective in relation to what? The widely variable effect of giving a person a 'biochemical nothing'? It's more like x = y. Can you figure that out? What is the value of x?


                  Biochemical nothing! Now that is Funny! You're not seriously suggesting that a 'biochemical nothing' is actually a 'something' are you? Well that does sound interesting! Can you tell us how that could be possible?

                  Regards
                  Sim
                  These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Why so much faith in RDBPCT's?...

                    Isn't a scientific experiment supposed to be designed in such a manner as to rigorously test the specific hypothesis? Why insist on one that does not?

                    Anecdotal/statistical evidence is is a far better measure of homeopathy's effectiveness. Why refuse to accept it?

                    ............................


                    The way pharmaceutical medicines are developed through RDBPCT's and prescribed through trial and error, often without understanding the full effects of the medicines used, is decidedly hit and miss...

                    Where is the science theory?

                    What are the Laws governing the science?

                    If there are no Laws how can we even call it a Science?

                    ......................

                    Is a 'biochemical nothing' a 'something'? If so, how can this be possible?
                    These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                      Why so much faith in RDBPCT's? Why insist on an experiment that fails to rigorously test the specific hypothesis? We could go on like this for ever...

                      ...

                      Perhaps you have not fully understood my previous posts to this thread. You have yet to respond to many of my questions. I believe I have responded to all of yours.
                      Sorry. I've just looked back through the thread and can't see much I haven't addressed from you except that "faith in RDBPCTs" question. If there's something I missed, bring it up again - unless it's way off topic
                      As to why I have "faith" in them, well, I'll address that in the next comment.

                      As to the "where did I say that bit" - and this flat forum isn't well suited to quoting nested comments so I'm not going to try - what I said I stand by. What you seem to think I said is something else, because they don't mean the same thing at all.

                      Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                      Effective in relation to what? The widely variable effect of giving a person a 'biochemical nothing'? It's more like x = y. Can you figure that out? What is the value of x?
                      y...?

                      Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                      Biochemical nothing! Now that is Funny! You're not seriously suggesting that a 'biochemical nothing' is actually a 'something' are you? Well that does sound interesting! Can you tell us how that could be possible?
                      No, I'm not suggesting that.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                        Why so much faith in RDBPCT's?...

                        Isn't a scientific experiment supposed to be designed in such a manner as to rigorously test the specific hypothesis? Why insist on one that does not?
                        I cannot think of a medical hypothesis which cannot be tested by such trials. You believe that homeopathy is exempt, and I believe that you are only saying that because it fails RDBPCTs: special pleading.

                        Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                        Anecdotal/statistical evidence is is a far better measure of homeopathy's effectiveness. Why refuse to accept it?
                        Anecdotes have their place. Without anecdotes, people probably wouldn't try testing anything in the first instance. But if anecdotal evidence was appropriate for proving medical interventions worked to any degree of significance, were safe within reasonable tolerances, etc, why do you think that we don't see conventional medicine held to this anecdotal standard?
                        Because it's a poor standard.
                        Let's see:
                        1) Doctors from country X says that it has been curing cancer for years with special leaves.
                        2) Books have been written about how crystals can heal people. Many people believe it and have stories to tell.
                        3) Many people in the population swear that moving their furniture around brings them luck and money. Books have been written about this and many people believe it.
                        4) etc.

                        These are examples of things we don't take on "faith". Anecdotes, regardless of whether a lot of people say they're true are still just stories until they pass some sort of standard.

                        If my friend comes into the room and casually tells me in the course of conversation that she can cure asthma, what should I think? I ask her how, she says using some method untestable by science. I ask her to show me and she says that she's cured loads of people, I shouldn't need to see. I should trust her. We've been friends for years. How can I not trust her?

                        As I tried pointing out to Gina before, if you are prepared to accept one anecdote that homeopathy works, will you accept an anecdote saying it doesn't? How about a thousand? If not, why not? Is anecdotal evidence only good if it favours your hypothesis? Or is it no good at all?

                        RDBCTs are the best we can do. I used that phrase before and I think there might have been some confusion as to what I meant. I meant that RDBPCTs are the best we can do, and I didn't mean that nothing, or a tiny bit more than nothing was the best we can do. I think.

                        Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                        The way pharmaceutical medicines are developed through RDBPCT's and prescribed through trial and error, often without understanding the full effects of the medicines used, is decidedly hit and miss...

                        Where is the science theory?

                        What are the Laws governing the science?
                        I'm assuming you're talking about physical laws, and not legal ones? Like your Law of Similars?
                        There are markedly few things given the status of Laws in science. It's practically an outmoded terminology - nowadays we still call laws laws but new ones are called "accepted theories"
                        Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                        If there are no Laws how can we even call it a Science?
                        This sentence confuses me. It seems to be based on a strange idea of what science is. Science is a method which leads us to define laws (or accepted theories, anyway)
                        We don't just make up a law and then assume that science will fit to it. Where would we get that law from? Science. That's circular, isn't it? If you are saying that we should base our science on "laws" we just made up out of thin air, well then, we have a problem.

                        Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                        Is a 'biochemical nothing' a 'something'? If so, how can this be possible?
                        Not as far as I'm concerned. It can't.
                        Last edited by moopet; 13th September 2008, 11:04 AM. Reason: I can't type and I like spelling

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by moopet View Post


                          y...?

                          y is a variable (placebo effect) that is used like a constant to gauge the unknown effect of x. It is not a case of 1 = 1, it is a case of x = y.

                          Q: How can you know the value of either?

                          RDBPCTs use a variable (placebo effect) as a baseline against which to measure an unknown (drug effect).

                          Q: Does this sound like a sound scientific method to you? Please explain?
                          These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by moopet View Post
                            I cannot think of a medical hypothesis which cannot be tested by such trials[1]. You believe that homeopathy is exempt, and I believe that you are only saying that because it fails RDBPCTs[2]: special pleading.
                            You have still not answered my question - you have given a non-answer - my questions still stands!

                            In response to your non-answer:

                            1. Immunisation? Psychotherapy? There are many.

                            2. Homeopathy does not fail RDBPCT's. The criticism is that the trials were not 100% watertight (what trial is?) in terms of the protocol that was used; or some minor technicality was sufficient to cast doubts on the findings. The truth of the matter is that homeopathy has held up very well in RDBPCT's (despite their drawbacks) but attempts to discredit this evidence have been made and have been successful.

                            Where did I say that I believe that homeopathy is exempt from scientific scrutiny?

                            I, along with the rest of my profession, would welcome a thorough scientific evaluation of homeopathy and its effectiveness. In fact we are positively calling out for this!

                            We simply have a situation where the scientists (who are supposed to be clever by the way) are insisting on trying to verify homeopathy with experiments that were designed to test a different hypothesis, specifically the effectiveness of pharmaceutical medicines.

                            The same experiment does not / cannot/ will not accurately evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic medicines. This is the qualified and considered opinion of the homeopathic profession, who are best placed to know this after all. We have stated this again and again until we a tired of repeating it. Yet the scientific community does not seem to be able to hear it.

                            I shall repeat it again-

                            Homeopathy does not lend itself well to RDBPCT's. Homeopathic treatment is highly individualised in that it relates to the patient as much as the condition being treated. A trial that tests drug A for condition B is likely to yield a misleading result.

                            Q: Can you explain why it is that the scientific community insists on this ill-fitting experiment to evaluate homeopathy?

                            Q: Can you explain why the scientific community refuses to design an experiment that WILL evaluate homeopathy effectively?

                            Q: Also how the scientific community can justify its position that homeopathy is not scientifically validated when it has made no real attempt to validate it?

                            Q: Is this how science works?

                            Q: Is it the fault of the homeopath or the scientist if the scientist fails to use an experiment tests the hypothesis?


                            Originally posted by moopet View Post
                            Anecdotes have their place. Without anecdotes, people probably wouldn't try testing anything in the first instance. But if anecdotal evidence was appropriate for proving medical interventions worked to any degree of significance, were safe within reasonable tolerances, etc, why do you think that we don't see conventional medicine held to this anecdotal standard?
                            This is no argument. I could just as easily say to you:" if evidence from RDBPCT's was appropriate for proving medical interventions worked to any degree of significance, were safe within reasonable tolerances, etc, we would never have had the horrors of Thalidamide or Seroxat".

                            My original question to you stands.


                            Originally posted by moopet View Post
                            1) Doctors from country X says that it has been curing cancer for years with special leaves.
                            Q: Can you provide a specific example of where a medically qualified doctor from another country has made this kind of claim?


                            Originally posted by moopet View Post
                            2) Books have been written about how crystals can heal people. Many people believe it and have stories to tell.
                            3) Many people in the population swear that moving their furniture around brings them luck and money. Books have been written about this and many people believe it.
                            etc..........If my friend comes into the room and casually tells me in the course of conversation that she can cure asthma, what should I think? I ask her how, she says using some method untestable by science. I ask her to show me and she says that she's cured loads of people, I shouldn't need to see. I should trust her. We've been friends for years. How can I not trust her?
                            This is a somewhat flippant response. What you have described is somewhat different from statistics provided by medically qualified doctors at homeopathic hospitals to conform with legal requirements for all hospitals at the time.

                            Here are some examples of anecdotal evidence for homeopathy (examples of anecdotal evidence that the scientific community are currently refusing to accept as evidence for the validity of homeopathy as an effective intervention in the treatment of disease). The examples are naturally from a time when homeopathy was at its peak. There is a vast amount of this kind of evidence for homeopathy, but, it is not scientifically valid- apparently.

                            1. Among the outstanding early professional accomplishments of Hahnemann, we shall mention but one. During the scourge of Leipsic, when tens of thousands were dying "like flies" from the Plague, and when every victim of the epidemic was committed to the "dead house, " Hahnemann with his homeopathic prescribing saved 183 consecutive cases (most of which were considered moribund).

                            2. The Russion Consul General reported that of 1,270 cases of Cholera treated homeopathically in the year 1830, 1,162 were cured and only 108 died. The mortality rate in allopathic hospitals in Russia at that time was 60 - 70%.

                            3. Homeopathy's success in the treatment of cholera in Vienna led the Minister of the Interior to repeal a law relative to the practice of homeopathy. Two thirds of patients at the homeopathic hospital in Vienna survived, while two thirds of those in other hospitals died.

                            4. The aggregate statistical results for allopathic treatment in the treatment of cholera in Europe and America show a mortality rate of 40%; statistics for homeopathic hospitals show a mortality rate of less than 9%.



                            Q: Can you explain specifically why this kind of evidence is not considered valid by the scientific community?


                            Originally posted by moopet View Post
                            I'm assuming you're talking about physical laws, and not legal ones? Like your Law of Similars?There are markedly few things given the status of Laws in science. It's practically an outmoded terminology - nowadays we still call laws laws but new ones are called "accepted theories"
                            Obviously I am not referring to legal laws as this is a discussion about science. I hope I am not going to have to spell out every detail for you Moopet - that would be a little tedious.

                            'Accepted theories' are not new Laws. Laws are proven, immutable, constants. Theories are unproven, and very often unverifiable. Accepted Theories are just theories that the scientific community agrees are the most plausible theories presented thus far- they are not the same as Laws.

                            Your statement that markedly few things are given the status of Laws in science just goes to show how much of the science we value so highly is nothing more than theory.

                            Most of the Laws which govern the Pure Sciences were discovered during the period of history known as the Enlightenment. Laws are not 'outmoded terminology' at all. It is likely that all of the Laws that underpin the Pure Sciences have already been discovered. This does not mean that 'Accepted Theories' are the same as Laws. Newton's Accepted Theory of Gravity?

                            Samuel Hahnemann lived towards the end of the Enlightenment period and discovered the Laws relating to Medical Therapeutics (the administering of medicines in order to cure disease). It is these Laws which govern the Pure Science of Homeopathy.

                            Originally posted by moopet View Post
                            This sentence confuses me. It seems to be based on a strange idea of what science is. Science is a method which leads us to define laws (or accepted theories, anyway).
                            You do not know the definition of the word science? Your definition is correct but the word science can also refer to 'a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws, e.g. the mathematical sciences'.


                            Originally posted by moopet View Post
                            We don't just make up a law and then assume that science will fit to it. Where would we get that law from? Science. That's circular, isn't it? If you are saying that we should base our science on "laws" we just made up out of thin air, well then, we have a problem.

                            My understanding is as follows: objects which are influenced by the Forces of Gravity are subject to it's Laws. Objects which are moving are subject to the Laws of Motion. Scientific Laws are the foundations of the Pure Sciences. Science Theory relates to untested Hypotheses. Science Method is the testing of these Hypotheses to see if they conform with reality. If they do they become Facts.

                            Q: Where did I say that we should base our science on Laws we just made up out of thin air?

                            Originally posted by moopet View Post
                            Not as far as I'm concerned. It can't.
                            Q: Is a "biochemical nothing" a 'nothing' or a 'something'? As far as I am aware it has to be one or the other!!!
                            These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                              y is a variable (placebo effect) that is used like a constant to gauge the unknown effect of x. It is not a case of 1 = 1, it is a case of x = y.

                              Q: How can you know the value of either?

                              RDBPCTs use a variable (placebo effect) as a baseline against which to measure an unknown (drug effect).

                              Q: Does this sound like a sound scientific method to you? Please explain?
                              I've actually got lost on this part of the thread. If I find my way, I'll get back to you.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                                You have still not answered my question - you have given a non-answer - my questions still stands!

                                In response to your non-answer:

                                1. Immunisation? Psychotherapy? There are many.
                                You could test immunisation using RDBPCTs. It just might not be so ethical. Psychotherapy? Opinion in the scientific community is divided as to its efficacy, and I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of it. It's not a useful comparison, because it's not a drug.
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                                2. Homeopathy does not fail RDBPCT's. The criticism is that the trials were not 100% watertight (what trial is?) in terms of the protocol that was used; or some minor technicality was sufficient to cast doubts on the findings. The truth of the matter is that homeopathy has held up very well in RDBPCT's (despite their drawbacks) but attempts to discredit this evidence have been made and have been successful.

                                Where did I say that I believe that homeopathy is exempt from scientific scrutiny?

                                I, along with the rest of my profession, would welcome a thorough scientific evaluation of homeopathy and its effectiveness. In fact we are positively calling out for this!
                                What do you think of the studies that have shown no effect? Do you consider them to have been ill-formed?
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post

                                We simply have a situation where the scientists (who are supposed to be clever by the way) are insisting on trying to verify homeopathy with experiments that were designed to test a different hypothesis, specifically the effectiveness of pharmaceutical medicines.

                                The same experiment does not / cannot/ will not accurately evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic medicines. This is the qualified and considered opinion of the homeopathic profession, who are best placed to know this after all. We have stated this again and again until we a tired of repeating it. Yet the scientific community does not seem to be able to hear it.

                                I shall repeat it again-

                                Homeopathy does not lend itself well to RDBPCT's. Homeopathic treatment is highly individualised in that it relates to the patient as much as the condition being treated. A trial that tests drug A for condition B is likely to yield a misleading result.

                                Q: Can you explain why it is that the scientific community insists on this ill-fitting experiment to evaluate homeopathy?
                                Because if you can't show that an effect exists, there is no point in wasting more money or time on it.
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post

                                Q: Can you explain why the scientific community refuses to design an experiment that WILL evaluate homeopathy effectively?
                                Because whatever experiment is designed, if it fails, it will get called inappropriate (my opinion).
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post

                                Q: Also how the scientific community can justify its position that homeopathy is not scientifically validated when it has made no real attempt to validate it?
                                There have been a lot of scientific studies of homeopathy. It failed to show any promise, and failed to make any sense.
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post

                                Q: Is this how science works?
                                Yes.
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                                Q: Is it the fault of the homeopath or the scientist if the scientist fails to use an experiment tests the hypothesis?
                                If the hypothesis is untestable it's not science. That's part of the definition. There is usually a way to test something.
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                                This is no argument. I could just as easily say to you:" if evidence from RDBPCT's was appropriate for proving medical interventions worked to any degree of significance, were safe within reasonable tolerances, etc, we would never have had the horrors of Thalidamide or Seroxat".
                                I'd disagree. It's practically impossible to make trials over a long enough term to check for every eventuality. It's a risk/benefit game.
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post

                                My original question to you stands.
                                OK, the faith question. I have faith in the scientific method. RDBPCTs are a good product of the scientific method, with a proven track record. By extension I rate them as a high-probability of success tool for measuring efficacy. Higher than anecdotes, higher than guesses, higher than authority voices.
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                                Q: Can you provide a specific example of where a medically qualified doctor from another country has made this kind of claim?
                                No, it was a fictional example. The second and third examples weren't because I ran out of imagination, otherwise it would all have been hypothetical.
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                                This is a somewhat flippant response. What you have described is somewhat different from statistics provided by medically qualified doctors at homeopathic hospitals to conform with legal requirements for all hospitals at the time.

                                Here are some examples of anecdotal evidence for homeopathy (examples of anecdotal evidence that the scientific community are currently refusing to accept as evidence for the validity of homeopathy as an effective intervention in the treatment of disease). The examples are naturally from a time when homeopathy was at its peak. There is a vast amount of this kind of evidence for homeopathy, but, it is not scientifically valid- apparently.

                                1. Among the outstanding early professional accomplishments of Hahnemann, we shall mention but one. During the scourge of Leipsic, when tens of thousands were dying "like flies" from the Plague, and when every victim of the epidemic was committed to the "dead house, " Hahnemann with his homeopathic prescribing saved 183 consecutive cases (most of which were considered moribund).

                                2. The Russion Consul General reported that of 1,270 cases of Cholera treated homeopathically in the year 1830, 1,162 were cured and only 108 died. The mortality rate in allopathic hospitals in Russia at that time was 60 - 70%.

                                3. Homeopathy's success in the treatment of cholera in Vienna led the Minister of the Interior to repeal a law relative to the practice of homeopathy. Two thirds of patients at the homeopathic hospital in Vienna survived, while two thirds of those in other hospitals died.

                                4. The aggregate statistical results for allopathic treatment in the treatment of cholera in Europe and America show a mortality rate of 40%; statistics for homeopathic hospitals show a mortality rate of less than 9%.



                                Q: Can you explain specifically why this kind of evidence is not considered valid by the scientific community?




                                Obviously I am not referring to legal laws as this is a discussion about science. I hope I am not going to have to spell out every detail for you Moopet - that would be a little tedious.
                                Hang on a sec. I specified scientific laws because either one seems - from my point of view - equally bizarre a thing to ask.
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post

                                'Accepted theories' are not new Laws. Laws are proven, immutable, constants.
                                Law of gravity? Newton? Einstein?
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                                Theories are unproven, and very often unverifiable. Accepted Theories are just theories that the scientific community agrees are the most plausible theories presented thus far- they are not the same as Laws.

                                Your statement that markedly few things are given the status of Laws in science just goes to show how much of the science we value so highly is nothing more than theory.
                                That's what science is all about, though. Have you a different definition of science to me? Theories are ways of explaining what we see. They are falsifiable but not necessarily provable, and not provable at all without other axioms. Nothing more than theory sounds a bit like when creationists dismiss evolution as "just a theory".
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post

                                Most of the Laws which govern the Pure Sciences were discovered during the period of history known as the Enlightenment.
                                That's because back then they thought they were right. They thought that they'd uncovered nearly everything the universe held secret. Nowadays we don't have so much hubris.
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                                Laws are not 'outmoded terminology' at all. It is likely that all of the Laws that underpin the Pure Sciences have already been discovered. This does not mean that 'Accepted Theories' are the same as Laws. Newton's Accepted Theory of Gravity?
                                ...as above, would now never be called a Law because it isn't correct in all cases. And it was pretty well discussed with hostile peers, it wasn't something he just made up one day.
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post


                                Samuel Hahnemann lived towards the end of the Enlightenment period and discovered the Laws relating to Medical Therapeutics (the administering of medicines in order to cure disease). It is these Laws which govern the Pure Science of Homeopathy.
                                He discovered the Laws? Didn't he just make a couple of cognitive connections and announce them as laws? Wasn't one of them based on nothing but a dislike for the establishment anyway?
                                More to the point, who cares who invented the thing? I don't care who invented the car. Well, ok, I do, but only because I'm interested in history. It makes no difference to cars now who invented them, why, or whether they called the steering wheel a "law of steering".
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post

                                You do not know the definition of the word science? Your definition is correct but the word science can also refer to 'a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws, e.g. the mathematical sciences'.


                                My understanding is as follows: objects which are influenced by the Forces of Gravity are subject to it's Laws. Objects which are moving are subject to the Laws of Motion. Scientific Laws are the foundations of the Pure Sciences. Science Theory relates to untested Hypotheses. Science Method is the testing of these Hypotheses to see if they conform with reality. If they do they become Facts.
                                We may disagree on some points but they're not important while staying on topic.
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post

                                Q: Where did I say that we should base our science on Laws we just made up out of thin air?
                                You said, "if there are no laws how can we call it a science".
                                OK.
                                If it's not a science without laws, then laws are a prerequisite for science.
                                If you can't make the law with reference to science, what do you make it with? This is obviously nonsense. A branch of science can exist with any number of "laws" associated, including zero.
                                This seems to me a misleading argument, you're trying to make homeopathy seem valid because it has "laws" associated with it. But those laws did not come from any other branch of science. They came to support homeopathy. And now homeopathy is supported by those laws? This is circular, and pointless.
                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                                Q: Is a "biochemical nothing" a 'nothing' or a 'something'? As far as I am aware it has to be one or the other!!!
                                It's a nothing. OK, I'm making up a phrase to use in my argument. Water is a biochemical nothing. Water is clearly not nothing. It doesn't have any medical benefit or harm other than affecting things like hydration, which aren't what the studies are about.

                                When it comes to it, if a homeopathic remedy has any effect, it should be observable. Or the homeopathic dilution should be discernable from the solvent. These are testable. That's all there is to it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X