Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

is homeopathy mere placebo?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by moopet
    On the other hand, you claimed that an off-the shelf remedy will not have any effect. These participants had no proving. The cause of their sickness is known, but if that was sufficient, then off-the-shelf homeopathic cures would work for anyone with a known condition. But you claim that's not the case - in fact, you claim that this is the reason blinded clinical studies will not work.

    How do you reconcile these opposites? Or am I misinterpreting again?

    look, I have no time for debates.

    I repeat - you must understand that you do not have ANY background in ANY system of medicine and have no knowledge of homeopathy. so, it is difficult for you to understand many issues.

    all research studies are not done in the same way and have their own aims and merits.

    I repeat - I have already mentioned a link for a german book that compiles many clinical trials and I have also mentioned a link to a giriweb .pdf file.
    look at them.

    I repeat - I have mentioned some ideas how a self test can be done. why do people like you or mr string make a fool of yourself? why waste your time here? if you are not satisfied with any clinical data or any research or feel it is biased - fine! do a self proving. do DBPC provings on large samples of people.
    go ahead and test!

    to test something or criticize something - you need to study it. did you and mr string read my last 4 posts? see dr hering's example. he read dr hahnemann's books to oppose homeopathy and later experimented as well.
    this is the way of the wise.

    if you or any person (homeopath or non-homeopath, medically trained or a layman) is seriously interested and has a scientific mind - first study the principles of homeopathic medicine deeplyand then set up your own experiments, the way you think it should be done (assuming that you do not trust ANY work, research, clinical proof of homeopathy now or in the last 200 years) - go ahead, set up trials, provings, DBPC studies, clinical tests and find out on your own. why waste your time in nonsense talking?

    if still for any reason you are not satisfied - why blah blah?
    ok, don't believe homeopathy works and be happy that way.
    why waste your and other's time?

    Comment


    • #32
      wake up!

      Originally posted by String Theory
      The Arsenic study referenced is not proof of anything for 2 reasons.

      1. The second part of the study (Group II) was not placebo controlled, a fact admitted to by the authors. The second part is the one that references the therapeutic effect on arsenic poisoning.

      2. The subjects drinking water was changed to a new arsenic-free source during the testing (see quote below). The reduced arsenic in the blood might be (and probably is) entirely due to the subjects looking after themselves better and being more aware of what they drink. I might be wrong but we'll never know because the experiment lacked a control group.

      "The volunteers of both Groups I and II were advised to take As-free water (from a plant nearby, water from which measured <10 ppb of As at periodical surveys) to the maximum possible extent during the course of the experiment, although they had actually been drinking water mostly from this plant ever since its installation. This was necessary because these people occasionally drink water from shallow tube wells contaminated with As after they exhausted the As-free drinking water they carried with them to the fields."
      1. you see mr string, I generally ignore people who know nothing because you cannot argue with fools. "a fool can ask more than the wisest men can answer". it is not my nature to call names. but, foolish people like you have sown the seeds of doubts in orthodox medical community and patients and so I have to handle bogus comments like yours in a hard way.
      this, I believe is necessary. someone has to stand up and speak the truth.
      you have no knowledge of any system of medicine and have zero knowledge about homeopathy. first read and then argue. your writings have zero facts and the arguements lack weight. don't practice "mental constipation and verbal diarrhoea" - the hallmark of the fools!

      2. this study is not a classical DBPC study. different studies are done in different ways and have their own merits. this was a study that was done and monitored by people of the orthodox medical community as well as homeopaths and backed by biochemical tests and investigations. it was published in a reputed journal. the sample studied was from the rural masses and not exposed to any homeopathy vs. allopathy debates etc.
      the results speak for themselves.

      3. I have mentioned link to a 2004 giriweb .pdf file and you can look at it.
      you can purchase that german book that is a compilation of almost all major studies on homeopathy (both positive and negative) and analyses them.
      see if they satisfy you! but read them first. again there is dana ullman's site where he provided info on many research studies.

      again, providing the links, for the last time:
      http://www.homeopathic.com/Merchant...ct_Code=DEA-TRI
      http://www.euricam.net/images/Scien...ortECHNov04.pdf
      http://www.giriweb.com/
      http://homeopathic.com/articles/research/index.php
      http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeo...ine_hering.html

      4. as far as arsenic is concerned - do try to find some facts before opening your mouth! do you know anything about arsenic? this was even used in the victorian times as a poison... but, foolish sceptics will not know anything except blah blah blah! so you know that arsenic is stored in the body and even hundred years after the death of the person the dead body can be exhumed and the traces of arsenic detected in bones, nails and hair?
      have you read forensic science or toxicology?

      complete jokers like you are are curse to humanity. can you ever imagine the suffering of poor rural masses who are exposed to arsenic? while you are living a cosy life in UK and have food to eat and an online connection to make a fool of yourself - these people are dying with arsenic toxicity. didn't you notice this mentioned in the study that the orthodox medicine could not do anything for them? didn't you sense that some wise practitioners of orthodox medicine are also invloved in this study and its publication? these people want to help the masses and not blah blah blah..or say "I don't believe".

      why don't you live in one of these arsenic affected villages and see yourself?
      people are suffering TREMENDOUSLY due to the AFTER EFFECTS of arsenic poisoning EVEN AFTER they have been provided arsenic free water.
      the effects of chronic arsenic toxicity stay for years and years.... till death. they don't go away in days and months.

      again, if you knew the problem - the goverment is UNABLE to provide arsenic free water to all.

      the effects of chronic arsenic exposure stay on even after the person is given arsenic free water - if this study shows the benefits of potentized homeopathic remedy arsenic alb. 30 (oxide of arsenic) - it is a big proof. it is a big relief. it is a big satisfaction to see the scars healing on the hands of these poor people. you can tour these villages and see the homeopaths working here and the results with your eyes. homeopathy is something that can help the masses! the orthodox medical community is also accepting it. it is a welcome change to read the term "evidence based complementary medicine" in this research. http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/4/537
      yes, homeopathy and allopathy should complement each other and work together. and yes, it should be evidence and research based. studies like this one are a welcome change.

      5. mr moopet and you - do you know about "genus epidemicus"? how homeopathy has helped in epidemics? google and learn. don't waste my time by asking a "quick question" on this. I have no time to teach or convince you.
      if you don't believe in something. fine! just shut up.

      6. mr string and mr moopet. you and a few others scpetics are the wisest people on this planet! you see, we are ordinary people and have little knowledge of anything!

      all of us - the lay homeopaths, the homeopaths with M.D. qualification are all fools. ok?

      all the work that was done by homeopaths in the last 200 years is placebo, biased, coincidence, anecdotal, concoted, sleight of hand, history, belief etc etc. ok?

      there is nothing in homeopathy. ok?

      people like you, mr moopet, mr james randi, mr ben goldacre, mr stephen barrett are the most scientific minded, intellectual, wise, well-behaved, well-mannered, rational, quack-busting, medically knowledgeable people ever born on planet earth. right?

      your knowledge of homeopathy, the way it is practiced and prescribed is total. moreover, you know ALL about physics, chemistry, immunology, genetics etc. you all know so much that you all can comment on any research study and on any medical or scientific subject. right?

      homeopathy is just placebo, with no effects. right?

      the governments and the WHO, who do not brand it a quackery - better take consultancy from you. right?

      what clinical evidence? - it is all placebo. mr string et al know for sure.
      right?

      this arsenic study is not conclusive at all. right?

      so may I, a very ignorant lesser mortal who believes in placebo (read: homeopath) request your majesties (all the scpetics) to do a test?

      venerable sirs, homeopathy is just a placebo and we fools are not understanding that for last 200 years and it is becoming more and more popular. some die-hard homeopaths like me, have started giving proof that homeopathy can even cure what the orthodox medicine labels as "incurable".
      only you can save me and the entire humanity from this placebo medicine.
      if you will not show me the way, who else will, wise sir?

      you need to prove once and for all to the public, government, homeopaths and their "devotees" that homeopathy is just bullshit. you have proven that homeopaths works - is disputed. right?

      so, mr moooopet, mr randi, mr barrett et al - we all request you to do a self test and show us the way so that we can leave homeopathy for ever. please do self test and work hard to finish homeopathy for ever, sir! your brethren have been trying to finish homeopathy for 200 years and have not succeeded - but, I am sure, you have the wisdom and knowledge to succeed.

      please wipe away homeopathy from this planet, sir! please save us from homeopathy, sir!

      since you ALREADY KNOW that arsenic alb 30 is just placebo with zero effect and the oxford study has confirmed that it was the arsenic free water that worked and not the homeopathic arsenic alb. 30 - please take ars. alb. 30 four times daily for 15 days. please ask all your wise brethren, who do the right thing by not believing in homeopathy to join this self test. call media people, homeopaths and their organisations. get this ars. alb. 30 self proving study audited by renowned auditors and other legal persons and do it in the full supervision of the homeopaths. this way the foolish homeopaths will not be able to say that you are telling lies / the results are doctored / the remedy was inactivated etc. the foolish homeopaths will have to accept the audited study when you are other extremely wise sceptic people will tell the world (after taking 4 x 15 = 60 doses of ars. alb 30 in 15 days) that homeopathy is just placebo. it does not work. there is not even a single molecule! there is absolutely no proving - no effect!

      please do this self test and show us the right way - venerable sirs!

      the world is at your feet, sir! waiting for you to tell us that the proving did not happen!

      as yes, I am a mortal law fearing person and so I have to add a disclaimer. that should not scare people like you. kindly prove that homeopathy is a placebo. you are also welcome to visit the poor arsenic affected villagers in bengal, india who seem to have benefited from homeopathic ars. alb 30. you must tell them that they should suffer for their whole life - they may die - but they should never take homeopathy or believe in homeopaths. after all it is moopet, mr string, mr randi, dr barrett, mr goldacre saying!

      suffer but do not take homeopathy, only believe in allopathy and mr randi, mr moopet etc! get vaccinated. all allopathic medicines are based on scientific research. homeopaths are fools. we will believe in you, your highness and live and die as per your whims.

      the whole world will be grateful to you, sir! please do a self test and ask ALL your sceptic brethren to join so that it is a large sample study of ars. alb proving on the wise sceptics! get the proving monitored by government agencies, homeopathic organisation, lawyers, media and get the whole thing audited. we all are waiting to hear that 60 doses of ars. alb 30 in 15 days lead to nothing! get the remedies from very renowned homeo pharmacies so that you can campaign to shut down these placebo dispensing homeo pharmacies.

      I hope your highness will take the trouble of reading my last 3-4 posts. there I have analysed all that your highness may have to say/ask/comment about such a self proving. all possible arguements and psychological issues have been dealt with there. please read them so that you do not have to take the trouble of questioning the merits of such a self proving. and yes, you may make the sample size n=1 or n= 1000! I hope there are 1000 wise sceptics in the world!

      please show us the way. we need your kind guidance. we don't know a thing and are wasting our lives in reading, teaching, researching, treating or getting treated with homeopathy. please break our dream and our mission of establishing homeopathy, as the best system of healing ever available for mankind.

      but, just keep in mind - if you ever realise what foolishness you and your brothers are doing - you must seek forgiveness from god (if you believe) or from the suffering patient (if you believe in humanity, at least!) for the grave sin you have committed by misguiding patients and doctors. you may realise that if one does even a little that may prevent the other person from finding his/her path to cure - one commits a great sin. and one who directly or indirectly prevents any person or misguides him from the solution to his suffering - can never be happy in his life.

      I hope you and other scpetics will at least have the wisdom to not become channels of continued suffering for others. yes, do doubt, question, research by all means. we are students of science and not believers in anything - there is no need to believe in homeopathy also. but, see to this that there is intelligence, wisdom, understanding, open-mindedness, compassion and egolessness in your endeavours to understand homeopathy and its efficacy.
      do not make a fool of yourself or unwittingly become responsible for others misery by sowing seeds of doubt and spreading false rumours.

      may the curse of humanity not fall on any sceptic and may the future generations not be compelled to label people like you, moopet, mr randi and others as trouble makers, fat headed egoistic fools, "know nothing but object to everthing" (mental constipation -verbal diarrhoea !) etc etc.

      read all the weblinks that I have mentioned in my many posts and if you want - do the self test / group test by proving homeo remedies
      or
      just shut up!

      dr manish agarwala

      PS: read ALL my posts in this thread dated 7th and 8th january 2006. they mention all details and possible issues about self proving or DBPC provings on a group with ANY homeopathic remedy etc. etc. read before you blah blah nonsense again. you have already wasted a lot of my time. I could not accept 3-4 new cases (people suffering even after years of treatment with orthodox medicine).

      homeopathy and allopathy will become complementary systems of medicine in the near future. there is no doubt about that or about the efficacy of homeopathy in the minds of anyone except bird-brained sceptics like you.
      there is a great amount of clinical evidence and we (homeopaths and allopaths and allopathic trained homeopaths) are witnessing the emergence of correct homeopathy (classical homeopathy) and also documenting great clinical results.

      a fool like you will always have something to blah blah - a few months ago I prescribed carbo. veg. 200 and that saved the life of a dying person. the family as well as the patient did not believe that homeopathy works and/or could do something at this stage. 2 renowned allopaths of the city had given up and the family had started preparing for the funeral! the relatives had started pouring in and they were prepared for the what they thought was inevitable. the wife of the old man (expected to die!) was in a shock. I saw a very very typical picture of carbo. veg. and confidently prescribed it. the effect manifested within 48 hours - the dyspnoea and the deathy pallor vanished! the whole gathering was SURPRISED! today the man is still alive and the old man, his whole family and the allopath who was treating him respect homeopathy. the whole family is my patient now. I had proved homeopathy works!

      the whole family was suffering from chronic illnesses despite being treated by the best allopathic specialists for many many years (!!!!) and now they have found relief with correct homeopathy!

      I and many many other genuine classical homeopaths are witness to many such well documented cases (with clinical and investigative proof, before and after homeo treatment). these cure are far too many and happen so regularly that it cannot be a placebo or a coincidence! except to the bird-brained jokers, who say: "I do not believe blah blah blah"

      legal disclaimer: the decision to do the proving of homeopathic remdies on oneself or others is enitirely the person's own. he/she will be proceeding entirely at his/her own risk. I am in no way to be held responsible for any discomfort / effect / consequence arising due to or as a result of any such homeopathic proving or self-administeration of homeo remdies of any potency to anyone. the readers are advised to take my post as information only. they are also advised to consult a medically trained legally licenced homeopathic practitioner before doing any such proving / experiment with homeopathic remedies on themselves or others. they must follow the advise of the legally licenced homeopathic practitioner and/or other health care providers about these provings etc. such provings may only be done under the supervision and guidance of medically trained legally licenced homeopathic practitioner and/or other health care providers.

      Comment


      • #33
        Hmmm, Charming.

        Touched a nerve there, did we?

        I pointed out some limitations of the Arsenic study and you respond with abuse.

        Strangely, I though this study was one of the better studies you have linked to, but it is not conclusive - the authors themselves would admit that.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by String Theory
          Strangely, I though this study was one of the better studies you have linked to, but it is not conclusive - the authors themselves would admit that.
          will never be conclusive for people like you.

          have you gone through the details of ALL the research work done on homeopathy in the last so many years?

          I have provided links to many studies and also books that compile all these studies. have you studied them all?

          many of these links lead to brief extractions from the studies and not the whole research paper. how can you make a final comment on a study and/or compare different studies without seeing the whole thing?

          with zero knowledge of toxicology, zero knowledge of homeopathy, zero knowledge of clinical medicine (of any system) and with zero study of all the research studies on homeopathy - you make a sweeping statement that this arsenic study is the best of all studies that I have linked so far and that it is inconclusive and then have the foolishness to interpret that homeopathy is placebo?

          this is not scientific enquiry but fat-headed foolishness. I do not consider calling fools as fools - as abuse, when things reach that state.

          it is a sin to sow seeds of doubt - particularly when it is related to one's suffering and its cure. do not abuse your right of freedom of expression. there are many who google looking for info and may make their decisions based on what they read. do not misguide them.

          an intelligent person will read the subject in depth and experiment properly before talking. something fools never do.

          do self provings and see whether it is placebo or not.

          no more time for you.

          ----------

          dear all,

          I sincerely aplogise to all (except sadistic and foolish sceptics) for the use of harsh language but would like to see in the wide context of the false propaganda unleased by a few people and its effects.

          dr manish agarwala

          -----------------

          to
          whom it may concern,

          ALL the basic principles of homeopathy can be tested and verified on one's own self and others. but, one needs to understand the principles correctly first and test them properly.dr constantine hering is a good example of healthy scepticism and experiment.

          at the personal level, those who doubt homeopathy may do a proving on themselves and see. the many weblinks that I have mentioned in my posts will provide additional info on homeopathy.

          if you have found this post by google search or in any other way, I would suggest that you ignore all the egoistic sceptics that appear on this forum or elsewhere.

          but, do understand that homeopathy works only when the correct remedy is prescribed in the correct way. correct homeopathy may have an answer to your or your loved ones suffering.

          do not try to self treat. do not go for supermarket homeopathy. search for an experienced classical homeopath (you may ask for a recommendation in the homeopathy list / discussion forums on this website) or look in the directories on homeopath in your area.

          just know that there is ample clinical evidence that homeopathy may prove to be effective even in cases labelled "incurable" by othodox medicine (allopathy). having said that I would like to point out that homeopathy is no panacea and that allopathy has its own place and use.

          you may trust homeopathy as an effective and clinically proven science of healing. it has helped millions to come out of their sufferings in the last 200 years.

          homeopathy is the finest system of healing available today to the suffering mankind. dr constantine hering, M.D., called it "de medicina futura" - medicine of the future.

          may you be healthy and happy,

          regards,
          dr manish agarwala

          Comment


          • #35
            if homeopathy is mere placebo as some fools allege, why are the americans interested in the cancer cures of dr prasanta banerji of calcutta, india?

            http://www.iaccgh.com/news/2003/070303.htm
            http://www.malzac.com/cancro.htm

            IACCGH of USA states:
            "It should be up to modern science and researchers to prove the efficacies of these unusual treatments, as Dr. Sen Pathak has done with Banerji's Ruta Plant extracts. Ignoring these or, doing nothing will be like ostriches with their heads in the sand and great opportunities for furthering the cause of medications and eradication of cancer may be lost. It is only logical that Dr. Banerji's claims must be respected while the scientific community must encourage more research to verify these innovative curative techniques. Until then Homeopathy will remain a mystery. Only by the involvement of modern science and research can homeopathy be taken out of the hands of quacks and put in its proper place in the hierarchy of alternative medicines."

            yes, we need research. yes, we need proper research. yes, we need correct homeopathy and not supermarket stuff. yes, we need properly trained homeopaths and not quacks.

            scepticism is most respectfully welcome but not of the foolish and fat-headed kind with zero information about the subject.

            this says all.

            I request the readers (whether lay or medically trained) to seriously consider the info given in my many posts and make a well-informed decision about their treatment, study, research work etc.

            let us not be "ostriches with their heads in the sand"

            may truth triumph.

            dr manish agarwala

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by String Theory

              The problem for science is that if homeopathy can't be tested in the way that other therapies are tested then we are left with only the anecdotal evidence of the homeopaths and their patients. Science doesn't regard this as evidence but homeopaths generally do.
              I agree here with String Theory. Science cannot be evaluated and tested, by anecdotal evidence alone. In comparison to homeopathy, anecdotal evidence is enough. That's it. If it works, such that Mr. X was treated with a solution prepared by a homeopath practitioner for his cancer and get cured, that is all that is needed. Hooray, the solution does work. In modern science, it does not work like that. There is no peer scrutiny in homeopathy at all. In science, you make your case, then publish your work in a peer reviewed journal for your international peers to scrutinise your work then wait and see if it can stand the test of experts in that specific field. Therefore, in science there is a check and balance of what can be claimed to work and what can be dismissed completely as wishful thinking.

              I will give an example here. In 1989, Professor Fleichman and Professor Pons, announced in the U.S that they had achieved 'cold-fusion' at low temperature. They became overnight celebrities. This had great implications for the worlds energy supply as it would be very cheap and also very clean. One obvious mistake, they forgot to do was first check out their homework that the theory of Quantum Mechanics forbids any possible nuclear 'cold-fusion' at that specific temperature the two inventors claimed they have achieved 'cold-fusion' at. In short, it means that they should have double checked their apparatuses and set-up for flaws because , the implications of their discovery is that they are breaking the laws of Physics (Quantum Mechanics nuclear fusion temperature). As an aside, the LAWS OF PHYSICS CAN NEVER BE BROKEN either by human or nature itself. As soon the two scientists published their findings simultaneously in Chemistry and Physics peer review journals, their (Fleichman and Pons) international peers in Physics and Chemistry replicated exactly the methods they described in their paper. To the disappointment of the two inventors, the results described in papers from peers checking the claim started flowing into main stream Physics and Chemistry peer review journals for publication with all refuting the claim. Not only Universities around the world published papers saying they have replicated the experiment of Fleichman and Pons and their methods and came to a null result. This means that the experiment was not reproducible. This implied that the prediction of Quantum Mechanics is correct all along , that nuclear cold fusion cannot possibly take place at the temperature described in the paper of the two inventors. Some Universities such as MIT, CalTech, Oxford, Cambridge, etc... repeated the experiment many times just to make sure that they have not missed anything. They repeated and repeated and repeated and not reproduce anything similar to what Fleichman and Pons have claimed. Therefore it was a sad ending for the two scientists academic careers. Their international peers ridiculed them, and finally they left their academic careers to pursue other interests. If they would have listened to their scientific common sense, which they definitely aware that theory of Quantum Mechanics say that is impossible for cold-fusion to take place at that specific temperature which they conducted the experiment in, then they would have saved themselves from international shame. They would have double or triple checked their findings to make sure that there was no flaw in their experiment. I believe that with the appealing of winning a Nobel Prize in Physics in front of their foreheads, the two scientists ignored the warning from Quantum Mechanics that such cold-fusion cannot take place, because for the 2 scientists they would have been the first in the world to defy the laws of Quantum Mechanics. After all, the laws of Quantum Mechanics prevailed and defied the scientists at the end with them both loosing their academic careers from respective Universities.

              There you are homeopaths. This is what sceptics are all about. Peer review your work, so that it is open for international peers to scrutinize your work and not make unsubstantiated claims and present anecdotal evidences. This is not acceptable in modern day knowledge-based civilization. The thing about homeopath is that I can go to my backyard and cut some grass and make some homeopath juice, then give it to my grandma to drink for her stomach pain, and then afterwards she felt fine. Wow, I have invented some homeopath cure here. This would be perfectly acceptable to homeopath practitioners as no one can peer review my invention or double-check my claim. That's all it matters, make some grass-juice, drink it and if grandma’s fever goes away, then that's it, it works, and I can start selling that grass-juice to the naive and suckers out there who would just listen to my story about grandma being cured with grass-juice. The question is followed then, is the grass-juice the cure for grandma's fever or placebo effect? You cannot have a definitive answer here because there was no control test of my grass-juice at all.

              Final question to all homeopaths. Who checks the inventors in homeopaths industry ? Nobody. Just make your claim, and then market it to the suckers and the naives. No double check, no check-and-balance, no peer-review etc, etc.

              Comment


              • #37
                dear sucker sionep,

                indeed, an excellent argument, naively presented of course, as is typical of the skeptics.

                there is of course no disputing your point. congratulations, on achieving a platitude. it is the best i have seen from you guys.

                one problem with your little (actually, very little) pov: the inadequacies of the (statistical) research effort in the homeopathic community has relevance only to the quality of the (statistical) research effort in homeopathy. but the fact that homeopaths are still in their relative infancy, in developing a serious academic (statistical) presence worldwide, does not invalidate their practice nor their theory base. if you want to discuss homeopathy, read a book, dhawale or deschepper will do nicely for a beginning, if your reading level is up to it (both, btw, MDs).

                a second problem is that the (statistical) research that has been carried on so far has been conducted in the most incompetent manner imaginable, and represents, without exaggeration, a severe blemish on the historical reputation of scientific investigation, not only for incompetence, but for the rabid, frothing bias in which its findings have been cloaked by research practitioners and proponents such as yourself.

                a third problem is the imbecility of the idea that the double blind technology can "easily" measure any danged medical practice it wants to. "it should be easy," is the usual skeptic gambit. and yet, it is surprising that homeopathy does even as well as placebo in your trials, since you guys habitually produce protocols that introduce bias in favor of placebo. yeah, that's right. google it, sucker.

                you see, you are a sucker, because you have mindlessly bought the bill of goods marketed under the banner of academic fashion, that stipulates to the mindless, that the rct is a gold standard. nitpick the rct, sucker.

                finally, you also qualify as a naive - another of the wonderful epithets you introduce into your ungenteel and ignorant swipe - since you have not the first hint of capability in evaluating the clinical evidence. you don't even recognize as a fact, anything that is not accompanied by a number.

                cold fusion my foot. this is redundant, unecessary repetition - except that you certainly did not understand the point the first time i said it, so i repeat: your platitudes about the merits of scientific method are platitutdes. no one can dispute them, but that says nothing about the veracity of your application. as easy as cold fusion, as easy as pie, as easy as thalidomide (and numerous other examples), to support the important contributions made by scientific method, to support the important safeguards introduced by a well developed peer review network, and to support the understanding that even the best systems are imperfect, and even dangerous when interpreted through ignorance and applied by the faithful...errrm, the fanatical, the ignorant, the uneducated.
                "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


                Comment


                • #38
                  addressed to mr sionep and mr robert medhurst
                  ------------------------------------------------

                  mr sionep,

                  this is a response to what you wrote....

                  I am adressing this not just to you but to the entire www.

                  you see, nobody will disagree or should disagree when you or anyone else talks about proper standards for research/evaluation of any phenomenon.
                  you are absolutely right when you talk about "peer reviewed" research studies and things like that. proper unbiased research based evidence is and should be the gold standard for any scientific study.

                  now, as far as the question of homeopathy is concerned, there are are few facts that should be noted.

                  yes, there should be more properly conducted and peer reviewed research on homeopathy. the claims of any homeopathy or for that matter any person working in any field cannot and should not be blindly accepted.
                  surely, homeopathy needs such studies.

                  but, it must be noted that it is ok if the studies are done double blind / peer reviewed etc. BUT THEY SHOULD BE PROPERLY DONE.

                  you cannot use tests that are only for x property and then decide whether the claim of y property is correct or not.

                  it is ok to use all possible scientifc measures to ensure that the research is genuine and not doctored / concoted / imagined /sleight-of-hand/placebo effect/ mere anecdotal belief etc. BUT YOU WILL NEED TO REPRODUCE THE EXPERIMENT EXACTLY AS IT IS CLAIMED AND THEN PASS A JUDGEMENT. if one does not see the sun rising in the east at midnight that does not mean that sun does not exist at all!

                  homeopathic treatment is an individualised treatment. if some research study tests the same remedy on a large sample of people and finds that homeopathy does not work - I agree with the findings.

                  if some research study tests some OTC supermarket mutiple-remedy combination formula on a large sample of people and finds that the formula does not give the results as claimed - I agree with the findings.

                  it is important to see that ANY research study on homeopathy is done ONLY WHEN THE CORRECT REMEDY (SINGLE REMEDY) IS PRESCRIBED TO THE PATIENT, AFTER A THOROUGH CASE TAKING BY A WELL TRAINED HOMEOPATH. IT WILL BE AN INDIVIDUALISED TREATMENT. THE REMEDY WILL BE FOR THE PARTICULAR PATIENT AND NOT FOR ALL.
                  (one may set up trials which are blind/double blind but they need to see that the treatment is done the way the homeopaths do. again, clinical and lab investigations may be done pre, during and post treatment to test the success/failure of treatment)

                  IT IS ONE THING TO SAY THAT MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED IN HOMEOPATHY ETC. AND QUITE ANOTHER THING TO CLAIM THAT HOMEOPATHY IS PLACEBO! my objection is for this foolishness, bias, flawed 'research' based on improper application of homeopathy, complete blind-spot for VERIFIABLE CLINICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED WITH LABORATORY AND OTHER INVESTIGATIONS PRE -DURING AND POST HOMEO TRETAMENT.
                  you may read more of this in this thread
                  http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=6082

                  - you may check the many links that I have provided in my posts in the above thread. that will lead to a lot of information.

                  - you can check this link for research work http://www.giriweb.com/

                  - read this .pdf file in detail and it may answer atleast some of your questions. http://www.euricam.net/images/Scient...rtECHNov04.pdf
                  (if the link does not work - send me a private email. I will send the .pdf file as attachment)

                  - here is one research study published in a prestigious journal.
                  http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/4/537

                  it is not that the claims of homeopaths are not being studied / evaluated / peer reviewed. a lot more work is going on than what you may think.
                  you have already seen the oxford journal link above - now a glimpse at what else is going on:
                  http://www.iaccgh.com/news/2003/070303.htm
                  http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjour...nci;92/19/1558
                  http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.o...t/full/6/5/463
                  http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/2/180
                  http://nccam.nih.gov/about/advisory/...s/1999dec.html
                  I have just focussed on dr p banerji and his cancer cures here.
                  I do not mean to say that this is the final word - the last word or to draw a conclusion. ALL I MEAN TO SAY IS THAT A LOT MORE WORK IS GOING ON THAN WHAT MAY APPEAR TO SOMEONE NOT IN THIS FIELD.

                  I REPEAT: it is one thing to ask for more research, more study, etc. but complete foolishness to straightaway brand homeopathy as placebo!
                  these researchers (from the field of conventional medicine) who are investigating this topic are surely not wasting their time with placebo cures!

                  having said the above, I would again state that there is an overwhelming amount of clinical evidence that proves the effect of homeopathy.

                  there is no sense in debating on the contents of this or that website / paper / my or any other's posts OR write this or that without proper information. if one is not convinced that homeopathy works one may witness the working of a trained homeopath in his clinic. why argue?
                  see clinical tests results yourself, conduct your own clinical examinations, see the lab and other diagnostic reports before -during and after the homeo treatment. DO NOT BELIEVE - see things with your own eyes.
                  ALL THIS CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC REPORTS ARE NOT MERE HERESAY OR ANECDOTAL STORIES ( this is not "my gradma got well after taking that grass from the backyard" ....) !

                  those trained in the orthodox medical stream may ACTUALLY WITNESS THE CLINICAL TEST RESULTS at the clinics of trained homeopaths like dr prafull vijayakar and others. the royal london homeopathic hospitals and the int'l academy of classical homeopathy in greece are other good places to witness correct homeopathy.
                  some links:
                  http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/
                  http://www.vithoulkas.com/
                  http://www.bestofvithoulkas.com/
                  http://www.prafullvijayakar.com:8080/index.jsp

                  here is a link that leads to a list of cases cured by dr prafull vijayakar
                  http://www.prafullvijayakar.com:8080/casestudies.jsp
                  I do not like when some scpetics waste my and their time in unnecessary arguement. many of them have NO background of ANY system of medicine and know nothing about homeopathy - yet, they go on to make sweeping statements and pass judgements about what they don't know.
                  whether one is medically trained or not - why doesn't any sceptic go to dr prafull vijayakar and ask him for proof? james ramdi may ask dr prafull vijayakar to prove that his claims of cures are correct.

                  the scpetic completely ignores all the clinical evidence. why?

                  ------------

                  in the thread
                  http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=6745
                  I had written:

                  ... there are only 3 ways in which this professor can be shown the truth and/or doubts about homeopathy be dispelled:

                  1) if homeopathy is a placebo, the sceptic may try to do a proving on himself or others. I have discussed these matters while arguing with a fat-headed sceptic at http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=6082
                  it is quite a wastage of time and energy arguing with fools who have zero knowledge about homeopathy.

                  2) homeopathy is individual specific. so any study with a single remedy on many people will not confirm the homeopathic benefits.

                  3) only if homeopathic practice is of a very high quality - will the doubts vanish. the pseudo-homeopathy/polypharmacy has to stop. the quality of prescribing has to go up. if the homeopaths (refered to by this professor) had managed to show results in those asthmatic children - this prof. would have been forced to admit homeopathy works. we homeopaths need to work and study harder, as a united community....

                  mr robert medhurst sent a counter reply to my post.
                  (see at http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=6745 )

                  -------------

                  dear mr robert medhurst,

                  thanks for supplementing my post with proper references.

                  if arguement is just for arguement sake - you are absolutely correct. otherwise your reply is typical scpetic like. if you look for meaning in my post - you will find it, othwerwise - there is ample scope for arguement.

                  on provings-

                  as far as provings are concerned - the effect of a remedy depends on the nature of the particular remedy, the potency, no. of doses given, the susceptibility of the particular prover to the particular remedy and the sensitivity of the particular prover.

                  jeremy sherr has written a book on provings.

                  one single dose of a particular remedy of a particular potency, one time, MAY NOT exhibit very clear symptoms on a particular person. this is quite clear.

                  all I meant was a self-test for the sceptic. nothing more. what is there to argue?

                  obviously, the provings need to be properly conducted. if some allopaths conduct provings in wrong way - can any conclusions be drawn from that?
                  do you mean to say (in the light of the references you quote) that there is NO RESULT with provings? so is it all placebo?

                  if ANYONE takes REPEATED doses of ANY remedy continuously - will there be NO EFFECT at all? (say 200c potency of ANY remedy- 4 times a day for 30 days!) why don't you do a blind test with ANY remedy on your own and check the symptoms that appear in the materia medica?

                  you probably understand what I ACTUALLY MEANT TO CONVEY and so there is no need to explain more.

                  single remedy experiments -

                  again, you arguement is just for arguement sake. all I meant to convey is that single remedy given blindly to a large group in a allopathic style study - will NEVER prove the brilliant efficacy of homeopathy.

                  homeopathy is an individualised treatment and the results show when the the homeopathic principles are applied in correct way. see the brilliant cures of dr prafull vijayakar ( http://www.prafullvijayakar.com:8080/casestudies.jsp )
                  do you think such brilliant results of homeopathy, as shown by dr vijayakar, can be proved and demonstrated to the world by applying any single remedy - blindly - to a large sample of people?

                  what do you mean to convey by the references you have quoted?
                  this professor did just what you are saying. if arnica is given blindly to all post-op cases and the conventional medical person is not satisfied - what do you do? accept homeo is placebo? is that what you want to prove?
                  is giving the SAME REMEDY (nitiricum acidum) to many patients of anal fissure - the best way to prove that homeopathy is effective?
                  do you think such research studies (done by allopaths in the allopathic way - giving the same remedy to all) - the correct way to test homeopathy? do you think that the brilliant results of well-trained homeopaths can be demonstrated to the world in this way?

                  you do understand what I mean. you may also be a homeopath - so I leave matters at that.

                  look at the clinical results actually shown by dr p banerji, prof. vithoulkas, dr prafull vijayakar and many other good homeopaths. see the efforts by serious and sincere homeopaths to document clinical results at:
                  http://www.homeocases.org/home/index.asp

                  this is probably the correct way to prove to the world that homeopathy works. mere arguements do not work - do not help.

                  thanks for the references, anyway.

                  I have nothing against you and not interested in any debate. I just made the point clear for the www. this post will appear in the research section of the otherhealth as well on the homeolist.

                  may the present and future readers of www, who come across these posts - understand the reality - understand the truth.

                  period.

                  regards,
                  dr manish agarwala

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    some interesting posts here:
                    http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=6485

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that seeks to understand the sources and to encourage rigorous research in this new, yet ancient world of complementary and alternative medicine.


                      search for "homeopathy" and "homoeopathy" in
                      http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        OK so rcts don't work for homeopathy. Please tell me how you would demonstrate to a high level of certainty that homeoapthic remedies work. (and PLEASE don't say "they just do"!).

                        One other question I've always wanted to ask is this: If a homeopath was to prepare 2 remedies but make a deliberate mistake with one of them, swapping the mother solution for ordinary solvent, do you think a good analytical chemist or microbiologist could tell the difference between the solutions? To clarify, 2 remedies, prepared in exactly the same way from the same solvents, only one has never seen the active ingredient.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          quote=String Theory]OK so rcts don't work for homeopathy. Please tell me how you would demonstrate to a high level of certainty that homeoapthic remedies work. (and PLEASE don't say "they just do"!).assuming you are talking to moi, this is what the point of many of my posts to these discussions has been about: how to develop better quantitative methods to measure homeopathy. in brief, it is a difficult problem, and i have offered a few ideas in various discussions, how to improve on rct's and how to design an more generally valid research strategy, for example, that can correlate findings from rct's, prospective studies, clinical evidence (case based, not quantitative), lab work, etc. actually, i'd consider basic research (physics) to be the ultimate best approach, but, you know, how long can that take?

                          i have tried to analyze, as well, the problems with rct's implemented up until now, in two articles at the hpathy ezine, last april and most recently, this january. i seriously am not an "opponent" of quantitative research, but have for a long time been very bothered by inappropriate design when applied to some applications, including psychotherapy, for example, or even abx trials in audio gear - and the very real consequences that unjustified conclusions have had on real world medical care, most particularly mental health care, based on those inappropriate conclusions.

                          One other question I've always wanted to ask is this: If a homeopath was to prepare 2 remedies but make a deliberate mistake with one of them, swapping the mother solution for ordinary solvent, do you think a good analytical chemist or microbiologist could tell the difference between the solutions? no To clarify, 2 remedies, prepared in exactly the same way from the same solvents, only one has never seen the active ingredient?
                          "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


                          Comment


                          • #43
                            If the 2 remedies are 'physically' the same thing, could a homeopath use either remedy?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by String Theory
                              If the 2 remedies are 'physically' the same thing, could a homeopath use either remedy?
                              they are 'chemically' the same, not 'physically' the same. but i think you know that already. and don't ask me to explain how they are physically differentiated...i really don't have any interest in debating whether there are still discoveries to be made in physics, especially as there is no way to settle the question, and it doesn't have any direct bearing on our difference of opinion, that is, whether or how homeopathic remedies can be demonstrated as efficacious.
                              "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Ehrrm. Just to nitpick, Neil: You mean that you claim that they are not physically identical.

                                Hans
                                You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X