Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Antibiotics

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

  • quote=MRC_Hans]Yes, or more generally, the relationship between treatment and disease outcome.

    yes. note, however (because of the errors this introduces, as reflected in your subsequent comments): my "simplified" example, of the relationship in the "conventional" efficacy trial to symptomatic response, was meant to narrow the point (for purposes of discussion) to only the symptomatic angle. of course, the specific reason to do this, was to eliminate the complications (to conceptual clarity) involved when we expand our present very focussed discussion to "disease" - for, of course, at that point we find that the conventional efficacy trial (cet? ok - cet) has that as an object of investigation, but the proving trial does not, and, in fact, can not have it as a goal - since observing disease outcome is not an object in the proving trial, probably because of the fact that homeopathy does not treat diseases, but instead treats the totality.

    Wait! An efficacy and a proving trial are two different things. In the efficacy trial, the goal is also to find the relationship between the treatment and disease outcome. The proving trial tries to record any effect of the remedy. I know that you are aware of this, but it is improtant to to keep the distinction clear, otherwise it does become unnecessarily complicated.

    bingo.

    See? Mixing up the concepts results in an unmanageable complexity. If we are designing a proving trial of Bel, we need to address the range of symptoms as per the MM, if we are conducting an efficacy trial, we need to address whether the disease is cured or alleviated.

    almost bingo, but you're missing the key point: at the moment, we are not conducting either kind of trial, but only trying to point out how outcomes in trials of homeopathy encounter complexities not encountered in the cet. thus, the proving trial does not address the question of curing a disease (which, after all, does not exist as a specific target of homeopathic prescribing). of course, that is yet another complication in trialing homeopathy, that homeopathy cures, or is claimed to cure, diseases, but does not treat them directly. so even in the treatment trial, we need to go round about, examine the impact on the totality first, and then look to see if the "disease" has been affected as well.


    You are mistaking lack of acceptance with lack of understanding. I understand your principles, I just don't accept them. Now to get back to the basic part of this particular exchange, the fact remains that you cannot convince somebody unless he accepts your arguments (rather obvious, if you think about it). The example of the 19th century scientist is walid enough, but the ridiculous part is his presumed adherence to obsolete methods. IF he insisted, I would have the option of convincing him on his own ground, or give up on him.

    well, of course i understand the distinction, but i think your position does reflect a lack of understanding. btw - from my pov, it is you who adhere to obsolete methods. and your lack of understanding (of my position) is reflected even in this, that you don't appear to understand that the whole allopathic (heterogeneous assault on symptomatic and disease expressions) approach has been supplanted by the homeopathic paradigm - like cures like. that is the foundation of our disagreement, after all.

    The fact remains, and this is central in the message I am trying to convey to you, that you can't convince anybody, unless he considers your arguments, and hence methods, valid. This does go both ways, of course, so I may not be able to convince you that homeopathy needs to be tested with modern methods, but as I keep telling you, that is more your problem than mine.it is only my problem politically. but in terms of scientific knowledge, it is your problem, in overestimating the capabilities of the rct - or, put the other way round, underestimating the complexities of trialing homeopathy.



    Ehr, I can't go back and unravel exactly which thing I said making you come to these conclusions, you are often taking things I say and making rather far-fetched inferences, but I can state my position on the matter as clearly as possible, something that needed to be done anyway:

    Empirical observation is the traditional mainstay of scientific research, and it is still the main method in many disciplines. However, in some areas, very importantly in medicine, it has turned out to be inadequate. On problem with empirical methods is that we tend to draw conclusions too early, and adapt our subsequent interpretations of observations to confirm whatever conclusion we made. Even highly trained and competent observers fall for this.

    not twisting what you say at all: the fact remains, you are not an empiricist, you (obviously) do not consider empirical practice (at least in medicine) to be the equal of statistical research, and you have more expertise with numbers, for example, than with diagnosis or treatment. you are a statistician more than a physician. it's that simple.

    Therefore it has been necessary to supplement empirical research with a number of methods, which can be loosely bundled under the terms randomized controlled trials, and statistical processing.

    Thus, you can regard this as two different, if supplemental methods of research, but it does not make sense to pit them against each other as two discrete approaches. In modern medical research, one cannot meaningfully exist without the other.

    they are two discrete approaches, hans. it is true, statistics can not (comfortably) exist without an observational base, but empircism can exist and did so quite comfortably for a long time, without (explicit) statistics. statistics is a useful supplement to empiricism for many purposes, including medical practice (you seem to forget that i value and actively consume statistical research in my own practice). statistics even, of course, can correct mistakes of observation. but statistics is useless in the individual case, and is, even in the general approach to science, only a competing technology, not a trump. a difference in outcomes as between observation and measurement needs to be reconciled: and the decision does not automatically revert in favor of the numbers.

    you must nitpick the case of the 9 y.o. girl on its clinical merits, otherwise you cannot convince me that you have said anything useful about it, but have merely reiterated the ground belief of your faith, that without numbers, facts cannot be adduced, without justifying such a conclusion by a realistic analysis of the real medical situation.


    Wrong. What I say is that obervational methods are good, but observational methods reinforced with "quantitative" (not a good term, really) methods are better. This really makes your error clear: I'm not discussing observational versus "quantitative", I'm promoting the reinforcement of observational methods with "quantitative". (And I consider it your error, because I have made that quite clear a number of times, latest in the rest of my post, which you seem to misunderstand):

    once again, you are confusing the issue: are these two differnt methods, or not? you are in your own words "promoting the reinforcement of observational methods with 'quantitative'." exactly: they are two different methods, and they can be used to supplement each other, and it may in principle be impossible to strictly separate them, precisely, as i have said, because they exist on a continuum, and even at the ends of the continuum there is no pure type, but the balance of practices at one end of the continuum are nevertheless quite distinct than the balance we find at the other:

    i am a clinician, hans; you are a statistician. nobody is confused about that, except maybe vous?


    No, that is not correct. It is a method of filtering empirical information from a number of error sources, including, but not limited to, the abovementioned observer bias. True, this happens at the cost of narrowing the scope of a given test. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is really a basic tenet of information theory: Noise reduction always comes at the cost of reduced bandwidth.

    right. that is a good way to re-phrase my point: "the rct is quantitative research, it is a method of measuring results derived from empirical practice, and it selects from the body of empirical observations in order to construct an artificial situation that it hopes will reflect real world realities adequately enough to promote some degree of confidence in its findings."

    we seem to agree with me.

    neil



    Hans[/quote]i have consolidated the discussion in the hpathy thread, hans - thanks for the suggestion.
    "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


    • Answered at hpathy.

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

      Comment


      • Mr hans,

        How interactions are stored in brain as memoy?
        Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
        Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

        Comment


        • We don't know in all detail, but we know the overall structure. I'm not going to try to explain such a complex subject to you, I'm sure you can google something about neurons, but suffice to say, we know the brain has the neccessary structure, and we have an overall idea of how it functions.

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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MRC_Hans
            We don't know in all detail, but we know the overall structure. I'm not going to try to explain such a complex subject to you, I'm sure you can google something about neurons, but suffice to say, we know the brain has the neccessary structure, and we have an overall idea of how it functions.

            Hans
            Actually many links tell that its physiology--how it is stored is not yet understood.
            Physiology
            Overall, the mechanisms of memory are not well understood. Brain areas such as the hippocampus, the amygdala, or the mammillary bodies are thought to be involved in certain kinds of memory.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory
            I think it is just observed memory types & where stored, but not how it is/can be stored.

            Information storage or memory storage looks to be "yet unknown" aspect.
            Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
            Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

            Comment


            • Think what you will and have fun.

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MRC_Hans
                Think what you will and have fun.

                Hans
                When science couldn't yet know science of memory storage--still accept memory, how can you say it is final in understanding other storages of memories as in homeopathic remedies.

                Anyway to help you or to science;-

                An atom with certain spins (electrons and nucleous spins) would have slightly different spectrum lines then the same atom with different spins (though the time the base energy is above ground is very short), you could also change the levels of energy by putting the atom in a magnetic field, this change is constant as long as the field exist, so it can store long term info.

                Atom storing information is called Qubit, and by fourier transform you can take the most probable state of it and say that's it's state."

                In vew of above, when we keep two substance (say NaCl and lactose) in close contact (by triturating and potentization process), it can effect spins and spectral lines of both without changing their chemical composition. So the spins and spectral lines of molecules on Ist poency will be different and will serve new substance for next potency. Such process continues as you higher the potency. When there are no molecules of active substance can be present, still previous potency's molecules should be having different spins and spectral lines than raw lactose--so can serve purpose of active/different substance than raw lactose mixed in this potency.
                Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
                Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

                Comment


                • Originally posted by kayveeh
                  When science couldn't yet know science of memory storage--still accept memory, how can you say it is final in understanding other storages of memories as in homeopathic remedies.
                  I don't say it is final. I say that no mode of memory for homeopathic remedies is known to science. However, unlike brain memory, where we know the structure, location and main characteristics of memory, we don't even have one hint of what it could be in homoepathy. That doesn't mean that it cannot possibly be there, it just means that we have no hint of where to look for it.

                  Anyway to help you or to science;-
                  Kumar, seriously, that is like a stone offering to help a duck swim.

                  An atom *snip* and by fourier transform you can take the most probable state of it and say that's it's state."

                  In vew of above, when we keep two substance (say NaCl and lactose) in close contact (by triturating and potentization process), it can effect spins and spectral lines of both without changing their chemical composition.
                  No.

                  So the spins and spectral lines of molecules on Ist poency will be different and will serve new substance for next potency. Such process continues as you higher the potency. When there are no molecules of active substance can be present, still previous potency's molecules should be having different spins and spectral lines than raw lactose--so can serve purpose of active/different substance than raw lactose mixed in this potency.
                  No.

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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MRC_Hans
                    I don't say it is final. I say that no mode of memory for homeopathic remedies is known to science. However, unlike brain memory, where we know the structure, location and main characteristics of memory, we don't even have one hint of what it could be in homoepathy. That doesn't mean that it cannot possibly be there, it just means that we have no hint of where to look for it.
                    Science had tried many/most tests on animals



                    No.



                    No.

                    Hans
                    Why/how?

                    Are you sure absolutely, that all atoms other than isotopes and molecules are absolutely same in their spins, temperature or spectural lines?

                    Will two non-ferro magnetic substances(say NaCl and lactose are kept in close contant and such close contact is maintained, will it not effect each other and maintained persistently till such contact is there?
                    Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
                    Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

                    Comment


                    • Magnetic forces
                      Magnetized items interact with other items in very specific ways.

                      Forces between magnets
                      If two magnets are brought close enough together, their fields will begin to interact in the following ways:

                      If the magnets' north poles are brought together, the magnets will repel one another (like poles repel)
                      If the north pole of one magnet is brought to the south pole of the other magnet, the magnets will attract one another (opposite poles attract)

                      Magnets and ferromagnetic materials
                      If a magnet is brought close enough to a ferromagnetic material (that is not magnetized itself), the magnet will strongly attract the ferromagnetic material regardless of orientation. Both the north and south pole of the magnet will attract the other item with equal strength.

                      Magnets and diamagnetic materials
                      By definition, diamagnetic materials weakly repel a magnetic field. This occurs regardless of the north/south orientation of the field.

                      Magnets and paramagnetic materials
                      By definition, paramagnetic materials are weakly attracted to a magnetic field. This occurs regardless of the north/south orientation of the field.
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet
                      Magnetic field may be dependent of motions within atoms/molecules and their alignment/orientetion in one direction. Individualization and dilution of atoms and molecules can increase such magnetic forces which can interact with caries and maintained till two substance or two typw of substances persist together in close contact--which happens on potentization process.

                      Good luck and good wishes.
                      Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
                      Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

                      Comment


                      • Kumar, your questions don't make sense, and they don't have answers. You don't even understand your own questions, so what makes you think you would understand the answers?

                        By the way, what makes you think substances are in particularly close contact during potentization?

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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MRC_Hans
                          Kumar, your questions don't make sense, and they don't have answers. You don't even understand your own questions, so what makes you think you would understand the answers?

                          By the way, what makes you think substances are in particularly close contact during potentization?

                          Hans
                          Then you can explain briefly. 1+10/100 then potentizing can make these in close contact, dilution or individualization of active substance and of substance effected by potentization process--sooner or later.
                          Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
                          Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

                          Comment


                          • They are in no more, and no less close contact than any substance diluted in any medium.

                            We are back to the original question: Even granted that there is some memory effect (although we know of none), how does the water "know" what to remember? How does the 99% water know that it is supposed to record the 1% from the previous dilution step? What keeps it from recording the glass of the vial, the stopper, the various contaminants, or simply some of the other water?

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

                            Comment


                            • It is just persistent interaction and persistent effect of magnetic field of 1%+99%. It may be minute but still such interaction will persist as information of previous potency. About measuring it, spins and spectral lines are to be measured, which I think scince can try it.
                              Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
                              Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

                              Comment


                              • You didn't answer my question. Not that you have to, since there is no basis for your idea, anyhow.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X