Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Antibiotics

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

  • #46
    Mr hans,

    I mean that it may not be always proper or conclusive to base DB studies or other clinical trials unless these are in field, prolonged, life-long and even for many genarations. Otherwise, these can just be "still experimantals".
    Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
    Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by bwv11
      only partly correct. but a better way to look at it, or to understand my point more precisely, is that, apart from execution, there are limits to how the rct can be appropriately applied, as there are limits to anything.
      Of course. I can only agree with that. However, the limits imposed by lack of human honesty or due dilligence are not limiting factors for applicability of rct. If anything, then the contrary, because the rct system not only makes it more difficult to cheat, it also makes it easier to detect cheating, during review.

      now, we disagree to whether homeopathy falls within the span of the rct, and if it does, how easily it can be applied there
      Exactly, and this is what we should spend our energy discussing.

      ... a minimal point i have tried to make is that it is very difficult to design an adequate protocol, certainly for a treatment trial, because of all of the confounders - some of which are simply in the nature of homeopathic process - e.g., the numbers of symptoms we look for, the length of time treatment takes, the generally mild and hard to identify appearance of symptoms in response to the "gentle" cure of homeopathy, etc.
      Well, I think you are mixing things up quite throughly, here. But I think we need to discuss a specific protocol to clear that up.

      in short, i am not and have specifically stated over and over that i am not questioning the principle of the rct - so please get that straight. what i am questioning is exactly the difficulties in the path of adequately adapting it to measure a difficult object.
      Well, I'm trying to get your position in rct straight, but I'm afraid you are being quite ambiguous about it.

      as i said, there is no disagreement here; this is a misrepresentation of my views. the clearest case, imo, in which the rct can be applied, is in the proving trial.
      Well, here we agree, at least. A proving trial ought to be a breeze.

      treatment presents many difficult problems, and may be insurmountable, or nearly insurmountable, or easily surmountable once someone actually finds a way to delimit a particular trial without modifying/mongrelizing real treatment practices too far - you know, it is common to find that something is easy to do, once one has discovered how to do it ... just as, in hindsight, a scientific explanation may seem clear as day, when before it's discovery people might have not seen any way to resolve a particular problem.
      Well, I see less problems than you do.

      and, of course, beyond that is another limitation of the rct, in relation to the 'rare' side effect, and that is that the original resulsts are usually incomplete, in terms of risk, which also can affect its original findings regarding efficacy: the example at hand being the ssri's, which exacerbate depression rather than alleviate it. and hrt - all of the findings may be correct, but they are also incomplete, leading to many pitfalls in prescribing, if one prescribes this week, instead of next week when the next trial is published in the lancet - so those considerations also contribute to questioning the adequacy of the rct, to cover the waterfront, so to speak - in other words, another limitation, though still not undermining the principle.
      Adequacy is another matter. I'm sure everybody would be delighted if somebody could come up with an even better solution, but till then we will have to make the best of what we have. As I think I have said before: The present testing methods (including the peer review system) is somewhat like democracy; it is far from ideal, but it is the best we have.

      my "trials?" i beg your pardon. my prospective trial is unblinded, yet structured around a comparator cohort receiving conventional treatment, and measured against laboratory findings - which, btw, can be blinded.
      Trial, then, sorry. Yes, exactly: It is unblinded. Sure, the lab assessments can be blinded, but I seem to remember that you consider the complexity of assessing symptoms to be so complicated that it requires the evaluation of a clinician, which can hardly be blinded. Anyway, my question was how you could assume that, considering the problems with blinded tests, an unblinded test could be better?

      my proving trial, otoh, is blinded. furthermore, i have never insisted on any single standard, blinded, unblinded, quantitative, experimental, or empirical. you are the one who has nailed his dreams to the single standard of the rct, you are the one who imagines that his method is 'good as gold.'
      No, now it is your turn to misrepresent. I am not saying that it is as good as gold. The term "gold standard" is applicable to something that is considered the current authoritative method. Just like elections, with all their problems, are the "gold standard" for democracy. For all I care, you can make your own choice of metal, but the double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial is the standard you will need to meet if you go for scientific recognition of drugs.

      ....Out of time. More later.

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

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by bwv11
        we are in position to advise the authorities on the limits of the rct. you know, gold really is gold, and deserves the name 'gold standard.' the rct may be gold for conventional medical efficacy, but it may not apply as clearly to homeopathy. that's the debate. well, that and the problem of skill and honesty of the researcher.
        I'm sorry, but I think you will find that the FDA will be quite unwilling to take your advice. Have you ever been dealing with the FDA? You will find that they are very unlikely to take advice from the people they are about to audit.

        It will certainly take more than your articles to convince any authorities that conventional testing does not apply to homeopathy.

        The honesty and skill of the researcher will be that of the homeopathic researcher. You have agreed with me that the skills appear to be less that ideal, and personally, I will have my doubts about honesty.

        and i have answered, neither of which responses find their way onto your list (which is pretty typical):
        I think we both know that part of the purpose of such lists is to make a point, so rewriting them is fine.

        a) to establish more realistic (accurate) estimation of the limitations of the controlled trial - to challenge the basis for its trendy popularity these days;
        Mmmm, while a worthwhile quest in itself, that can not be the purpose of testing homeopathy.

        b) to contribute to our understanding ... you know, science is about discovering the 'truth.'
        It certainly is, and I don't even see any need for the quotation marks. The purpose of science is even to find The Truth, although we must realize that that is an endless quest.

        Now, in the case of homeopathy, IMHO, the first truth we should set out to discover is whether it works.


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

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally Posted by bwv11
          only partly correct. but a better way to look at it, or to understand my point more precisely, is that, apart from execution, there are limits to how the rct can be appropriately applied, as there are limits to anything.


          Of course. I can only agree with that. However, the limits imposed by lack of human honesty or due dilligence are not limiting factors for applicability of rct. If anything, then the contrary, because the rct system not only makes it more difficult to cheat, it also makes it easier to detect cheating, during review.

          as i said, "apart from the execution," that is, not considering cheating, there are limits to anything, including the rct.true or not true? we are obviously agreed that blinded research is not possible in the case of surgery - a limit on the applicability of the rct, regardless of considerations regarding skill or honesty of the researcher. we disagree whether - or how far or how easily - the rct can be applied to homeopathy.

          Quote:
          now, we disagree to whether homeopathy falls within the span of the rct, and if it does, how easily it can be applied there

          Exactly, and this is what we should spend our energy discussing. we have done so - without resolution. i have made the case at some length in my articles.


          Quote:
          ... a minimal point i have tried to make is that it is very difficult to design an adequate protocol, certainly for a treatment trial, because of all of the confounders - some of which are simply in the nature of homeopathic process - e.g., the numbers of symptoms we look for, the length of time treatment takes, the generally mild and hard to identify appearance of symptoms in response to the "gentle" cure of homeopathy, etc.

          Well, I think you are mixing things up quite throughly, here. But I think we need to discuss a specific protocol to clear that up. been there done that - the bell trial in particular, in my articles again. feel free to nitpick my articles point by point.


          Quote:
          in short, i am not and have specifically stated over and over that i am not questioning the principle of the rct - so please get that straight. what i am questioning is exactly the difficulties in the path of adequately adapting it to measure a difficult object.

          Well, I'm trying to get your position in rct straight, but I'm afraid you are being quite ambiguous about it. i really don't see any ambiguity: i am stating clearly that rct is best applied to conventional efficacy trials; it is applicable to the h. proving trial, and may be adaptable to a treatment trial though more difficult there. lab experiments (as with rat guts and tumors) are also a good target for the rct, i would add to my list at this time.i assume this clears up any perceived ambiguity?


          Quote:
          as i said, there is no disagreement here; this is a misrepresentation of my views. the clearest case, imo, in which the rct can be applied, is in the proving trial.

          Well, here we agree, at least. A proving trial ought to be a breeze. as i said, this is the clearest case - but the bell trial i reviewed adequately demonstrates how many pitfalls await the researcher who underestimates the problems adapting the rct to real world medical practice in homeopathy. i.e., not a 'breeze,' hans.


          Quote:
          treatment presents many difficult problems, and may be insurmountable, or nearly insurmountable, or easily surmountable once someone actually finds a way to delimit a particular trial without modifying/mongrelizing real treatment practices too far - you know, it is common to find that something is easy to do, once one has discovered how to do it ... just as, in hindsight, a scientific explanation may seem clear as day, when before it's discovery people might have not seen any way to resolve a particular problem.

          Well, I see less problems than you do. right. or, as i would say it, you see less problem modifying (mongrelizing, in effect) treatment for the sake of "practicalities" in research.


          Quote:
          and, of course, beyond that is another limitation of the rct, in relation to the 'rare' side effect, and that is that the original resulsts are usually incomplete, in terms of risk, which also can affect its original findings regarding efficacy: the example at hand being the ssri's, which exacerbate depression rather than alleviate it. and hrt - all of the findings may be correct, but they are also incomplete, leading to many pitfalls in prescribing, if one prescribes this week, instead of next week when the next trial is published in the lancet - so those considerations also contribute to questioning the adequacy of the rct, to cover the waterfront, so to speak - in other words, another limitation, though still not undermining the principle.

          Adequacy is another matter. I'm sure everybody would be delighted if somebody could come up with an even better solution, but till then we will have to make the best of what we have. As I think I have said before: The present testing methods (including the peer review system) is somewhat like democracy; it is far from ideal, but it is the best we have.

          this type of statement continues to astonish me, coming from you. in science (and in laws and regulations), if the object is pursuit of 'truth,' with or without quotes , then the 'best we have' must be 'right,' or it is useless, or at least well down the road to useless, and very possibly misguided and destructive, if it legislates on the basis of error (whether due to incompetence, fraud, conflict of interest, bias, or intrinsic limitations of the method).would you concede, at least in principle, that if systematic error in fact underlies the negative findings in controlled trials of homeopathy to date, and if the nature of homoepathic practice makes it very difficult to avoid such errors, then "the best we have" is inadequate - if the 'best' leads to erroneous results in a large percentage of cases?

          Quote:
          my "trials?" i beg your pardon. my prospective trial is unblinded, yet structured around a comparator cohort receiving conventional treatment, and measured against laboratory findings - which, btw, can be blinded.

          Trial, then, sorry. Yes, exactly: It is unblinded. Sure, the lab assessments can be blinded, but I seem to remember that you consider the complexity of assessing symptoms to be so complicated that it requires the evaluation of a clinician, but here i have not talked about assessing symptoms, but recording lab outcomes - you know, Factor X = 2.8, normal range 2.1-3.4. movement of outcomes in the h. cohort into the normal range, across a broad selection of standards, as compared to the conventionally treated cohort, would be quite convincing, i'm sure you'd agree, and is easy to blind. yes? which can hardly be blinded.but i was talking about lab outcomes, not symptoms. Anyway, my question was how you could assume that, considering the problems with blinded tests, an unblinded test could be better?not my assumption. my assumption, or argument, is that the prospective test, complete with comparator conventionally treated cohort and pre, intermittent, and post lab tests, would provide a wealth of useful information. remember, i'm not out there stumping for my favorite candidate, as you are: gold schmold, hans. we don't only need replication, we need independent confirmation: and that means bringing differing methodologies into agreement - the rct and clinical observation and lab tests and basic research all, in the end, must agree.yes? in short, not only replication, but independent verification.


          Quote:
          my proving trial, otoh, is blinded. furthermore, i have never insisted on any single standard, blinded, unblinded, quantitative, experimental, or empirical. you are the one who has nailed his dreams to the single standard of the rct, you are the one who imagines that his method is 'good as gold.'

          No, now it is your turn to misrepresent. I am not saying that it is as good as gold. The term "gold standard" is applicable to something that is considered the current authoritative method. Just like elections, with all their problems, are the "gold standard" for democracy. For all I care, you can make your own choice of metal, but the double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial is the standard you will need to meet if you go for scientific recognition of drugs. yes, precisely right - it is the political standard. but 'gold standard' implies, hans, that the standard is immutable, that it is sound, and can be applied with confidence across a well-defined range. the rct may be the best we have, quantitatively, but compared to lab results or basic research outcomes, it plays second fiddle, let alone the argument about empirical evidence.

          ....Out of time. More later.

          Hans
          Quote:
          Originally Posted by bwv11
          we are in position to advise the authorities on the limits of the rct. you know, gold really is gold, and deserves the name 'gold standard.' the rct may be gold for conventional medical efficacy, but it may not apply as clearly to homeopathy. that's the debate. well, that and the problem of skill and honesty of the researcher.


          I'm sorry, but I think you will find that the FDA will be quite unwilling to take your advice. Have you ever been dealing with the FDA? You will find that they are very unlikely to take advice from the people they are about to audit. we are informing them right now, if they care to read, or informing people who might inform them ... you know, public debate. neither you nor i will likely get an invitation to the dance, but there is, politically, no reason to discuss this at all if it does not have some impact on some small corner of the universe, you know, like the medical or skeptical communities.

          It will certainly take more than your articles to convince any authorities that conventional testing does not apply to homeopathy.

          The honesty and skill of the researcher will be that of the homeopathic researcher. You have agreed with me that the skills appear to be less that ideal, and personally, I will have my doubts about honesty.i am quite willing to concede that the homeopathic community could turn out to be no better than the conventional system, and await the day when lancet, jama, n eng j med, bmj, etc uncover as gross a record of deceit and incompetence as they have documented in the case of "your" system. !!


          Quote:
          and i have answered, neither of which responses find their way onto your list (which is pretty typical):

          I think we both know that part of the purpose of such lists is to make a point, so rewriting them is fine. really? well, yes, it does seem you like to rewrite what i (and others) say, and then (at least sometimes) refuse to admit openly that you have misrepresented the matter - dontcha?

          hmmmmm....



          Quote:
          a) to establish more realistic (accurate) estimation of the limitations of the controlled trial - to challenge the basis for its trendy popularity these days;

          Mmmm, while a worthwhile quest in itself, that can not be the purpose of testing homeopathy. of course this is a purpose for testing homeopathy: if a more adequate test demonstrates efficacy, then ipso facto it demonstrates the gross failure of the rct in many iterations to date to take an accurate or reliable measure of homeopathy - leading one to examine, i presume, where you and your friends have gone wrong. right? granting the significant "if."


          Quote:
          b) to contribute to our understanding ... you know, science is about discovering the 'truth.'

          It certainly is, and I don't even see any need for the quotation marks. The purpose of science is even to find The Truth, although we must realize that that is an endless quest.

          Now, in the case of homeopathy, IMHO, the first truth we should set out to discover is whether it works.


          Hans
          "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


          • #50
            hans said: "Have you ever been dealing with the FDA? You will find that they are very unlikely to take advice from the people they are about to audit."


            good one, hans! i almost missed that.

            but, certainly, you meant to say, "except in the case of conventional medicine."

            you know, it was pogo, wasn't it? who said, "we have met our friend, and he is us." or something like that.

            love that dsm-iv!!
            "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


            • #51
              hans,

              i have highlighted a few passages in my last lengthy response, two posts up, from last friday. as you appear to have "overlooked" my response, or decided it "wasn't worth" it to answer, i thought i'd offer you another opportunity, to address problems introduced by your habit of misinterpreting my remarks, and to clarify differences of opinion - which often are found to be present in situations in which there are disagreements.

              neil
              "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


              • #52
                Mmmokay:

                Originally posted by Neil
                Originally Posted by bwv11
                as i said, "apart from the execution," that is, not considering cheating, there are limits to anything, including the rct.true or not true? we are obviously agreed that blinded research is not possible in the case of surgery - a limit on the applicability of the rct, regardless of considerations regarding skill or honesty of the researcher. we disagree whether - or how far or how easily - the rct can be applied to homeopathy.
                I dont'd get this question. OBVIOUSLY, there are areas where rct cannot be implemented, and I have very clearly stated that several times earler.

                The areas where rct cannot be implemented are

                1) Interventions where blinding is not possible, for example surgery.

                2) Interventions where placebo administration would be unethical. Here, however, an existing method often takes the place of placebo, thus providing the reference.

                3) Interventions where the result will be so obvious, that a control group is not needed, for example diseases that are known to be 100% deadly without treatment.

                You have failed to convince me that homeoapthy falls in either of those categories.

                and this is what we should spend our energy discussing. we have done so - without resolution. i have made the case at some length in my articles.
                I do not agree with your articles.


                i assume this clears up any perceived ambiguity?
                I don't know. All I seem to get is that you think rct is great, except when it might invalidate homeoapthy.

                would you concede, at least in principle, that if systematic error in fact underlies the negative findings in controlled trials of homeopathy to date, and if the nature of homoepathic practice makes it very difficult to avoid such errors, then "the best we have" is inadequate - if the 'best' leads to erroneous results in a large percentage of cases?
                EHr, yes. If you are right, then I will concede that you are right.




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

                Comment


                • #53
                  quote=MRC_Hans:

                  Mmmokay:


                  I dont'd get this question. OBVIOUSLY, there are areas where rct cannot be implemented, and I have very clearly stated that several times earler.

                  The areas where rct cannot be implemented are

                  1) Interventions where blinding is not possible, for example surgery.

                  2) Interventions where placebo administration would be unethical. Here, however, an existing method often takes the place of placebo, thus providing the reference.

                  3) Interventions where the result will be so obvious, that a control group is not needed, for example diseases that are known to be 100% deadly without treatment.

                  You have failed to convince me that homeoapthy falls in either of those categories.
                  right, i know i have failed to convince you. but it is still my opinion - in spite of the fact that you are not convinced - that a 4th category to which the rct does not apply, or does not readily apply, is:

                  4) circumstances in which there are so many confounders (variables) as to vitiate any reasonable confidence we can have in trial outcomes ... or the confounders are so difficult to control (without "mongrelizing" reality beyond effective recongition) that they similarly vitiate .... this applies - in my opinion - to homeopathy and also to audio abx trials, perhaps some others, but those are the two that i think of first.



                  I do not agree with your articles.

                  right. but that is where i have put forward my argument in most detail, well, possibly also in the 'why' thread and individual other posts in various threads. in short, you said, "I dont'd get this question. OBVIOUSLY, there are areas where rct cannot be implemented, and I have very clearly stated that several times earler." in other words, the question is, is my category 4 a legitimate category, or not? and you are right: i think it is a legitimate category, and you "do not agree."

                  in short, the "question" is "OBVIOUSLY" that there are areas to which the rct does not apply, and i think it doesn't apply (readily or easily) to homeopathy, and you think it does.


                  I don't know. All I seem to get is that you think rct is great, except when it might invalidate homeoapthy. and audio testing. but, in any case, i think this is an area, yes, to which applying the treatment rct is problematic. i think the proving trial is not easy, either, but a better chance by far than the treatment trial. in short, homeopathy (and audio) represent gray areas, as compared to the more black/white examples you provide, of surgery, etc. of interest to me, is that your category 2 is the basis for my own proposal for a prospective trial of homeopathy, guaging homeopathy effectiveness against an entry diagnosis, using the established conventional treatment as the reference.



                  EHr, yes. If you are right, then I will concede that you are right.

                  hmmm, then why haven't you done so, already??


                  Hans
                  "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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by bwv11
                    4) circumstances in which there are so many confounders (variables) as to vitiate any reasonable confidence we can have in trial outcomes ... or the confounders are so difficult to control (without "mongrelizing" reality beyond effective recongition) that they similarly vitiate .... this applies - in my opinion - to homeopathy and also to audio abx trials, perhaps some others, but those are the two that i think of first
                    In principle, any number of confounders can be handled, as long as they are known. But I will grant you your category 4. However, you still need to convince me homeopathy belongs to it.

                    As for "mongrelizing", it should be avoidable, but sometimes at the cost of considerably narrowing down the scope of the test.

                    ....

                    I find it interesting that you should compare it with audio, much of which is obviously purely belief based.

                    hmmm, then why haven't you done so, already??
                    It is not enough that you think you are right.


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

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      quote=MRC_Hans]In principle, any number of confounders can be handled, as long as they are known. But I will grant you your category 4. However, you still need to convince me homeopathy belongs to it. right

                      As for "mongrelizing", it should be avoidable, but sometimes at the cost of considerably narrowing down the scope of the test.yes.

                      ....

                      I find it interesting that you should compare it with audio, much of which is obviously purely belief based. ...errrm, that is, in your opinion...



                      It is not enough that you think you are right.
                      yeh, i know, it was a joke.

                      Hans[/quote
                      "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


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by bwv11
                        I find it interesting that you should compare it with audio, much of which is obviously purely belief based. ...errrm, that is, in your opinion...
                        No, not just that. What makes your comparison appropriate is that a number of audiophile ideas are completely without any scientific basis, some are even contrary to current scientific knowledge. Thus, they are belief-based.

                        It lends itself excellently to blind testing, however. Unless you find it mongrelizing not knowing what you are listening to .

                        Edited to add: But I don't know just where you stand in the audiophile spectrum, which, IMHO spans all the way from feinsmeckers to total lunacy. There is, after all, a lot of difference between discussing gold-plated plugs and oxygen free copper cables and discussing wooden volume control knobes with a special lacquer and upgrading CDs.



                        It is not enough that you think you are right.
                        yeh, i know, it was a joke.
                        Just making sure, just making sure.

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

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          quote=MRC_Hans]No, not just that. What makes your comparison appropriate is that a number of audiophile ideas are completely without any scientific basis, some are even contrary to current scientific knowledge. Thus, they are belief-based. well, i'm curious what those elements are that you're referring to - it's an interesting subject, too, so i don't mind 'expanding the discussion' in that direction if you wish.

                          It lends itself excellently to blind testing, however. Unless you find it mongrelizing not knowing what you are listening to . well, yes, it is ... or can be. there are many things that are influenced by specific knowledge, and when that knowledge is removed, then one's judgement is affected. a commonplace one is exampled by coke: if you prefer coca cola to pepsi, you may nevertheless be unable to distinguish the two in a blind taste test, or be fooled by a host who is out of coke, but offers you pepsi instead. but there is a difference in taste, and it is entirely plausible that sometimes distinguishing the difference depends on knowing what you're getting.

                          i think this is especially true in situations in which the distinguishing marks are subtle, or relatively minor. in fact, that is one of things that affects therapist judgment in homeopathy, because symptomatic changes, or symptoms of aggravation, are typically very subtle, and in fact may mimic fluctuations in 'state of being' that occur naturally. without knowing, in a blinded trial, whether the pt has had the real medicine, it may be impossible to make a clear distinction. it is similar as well to the situation in psychotherapy in which interpretations of causation or aetiology are ordinarily cast as tentative, to be confirmed by further observations.





                          Just making sure, just making sure.

                          Hans[/quote
                          "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


                          • #58
                            Well, obviously, taste is very subjective, and so is hearing. One might ask, however, if there is an objective difference if people are consistently unable to discern it without the help of knowing that there should be a difference.

                            That said, the ability to discern taste and sound is highly individual. Some can't taste the difference between a cheap supermarket wine and a Grand Cru, others can pinpoint a specific district.

                            Well-being is also very subjective, and I have never denied homeopaths the ability to make their patients feel better. My claim is that there is no specific effect of the remedies (which is one reason I am rather adamant that a trial must be placebo-controlled).

                            Back to audio. Well, electronics is my specialty, so I am perhaps in a better position than many to discern audiophile claims that are plausible, possible, and outrageous.

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

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              [quote=MRC_Hans]Well, obviously, taste is very subjective, and so is hearing. One might ask, however, if there is an objective difference if people are consistently unable to discern it without the help of knowing that there should be a difference.knowing that helps one, for example, search for specific characteristics of sound reproduction, when, if those characteristics are subtle in difference as between two sources, may require repeated 'scrutiny' to determine, as with evaluation of the soundness of an interpretation in psychotherapy: repeated re-visiting of the particular construction, possibly over weeks, months or longer, in the developing context provided by new information.


                              That said, the ability to discern taste and sound is highly individual. Some can't taste the difference between a cheap supermarket wine and a Grand Cru, others can pinpoint a specific district. so, in other words, specialized knowledge is an aid in discerning subtle differences. this is also a factor in auditioning audiophile performance. the difference, is that the wine expert is distinguishing between two real wines - hard to blind him as to which is the real wine, and which is water, now isn't it?

                              Well-being is also very subjective, and I have never denied homeopaths the ability to make their patients feel better. My claim is that there is no specific effect of the remedies (which is one reason I am rather adamant that a trial must be placebo-controlled).obviously, that is your claim. but being adamant about blinding doesn't help you correct for the fact that the perception of well-being may be partly dependent on knowing whether the real medicine is being given: without that, it is not possible to pursue ongoing evaluation of patient (subject) response, in a developing context. even, for example, in a clinical proving, the homeopath will compare the responses of all of the members of a group: in this way, he will have a context to determine whether a questionable response from one prover is an individual, normal fluctuation in his state of 'being,' or a response to the remedy: if none of the other provers show the same symptom, it lends weight to interpreting the response as a normal fluctuation; if several other provers show the same response, that suggests that it is an effect of the prover. so this is another way in which knowing whether the remedy is real, is necessary for distinguishing its effects, and why blinding may in fact actively interfere with judgment.

                              Back to audio. Well, electronics is my specialty, so I am perhaps in a better position than many to discern audiophile claims that are plausible, possible, and outrageous. listening is not electronics, of course, but in any case you have not said what it is you consider to be implausible, or 'outrageous.'

                              Hans[/quote
                              "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


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by bwv11
                                knowing that helps one, for example, search for specific characteristics of sound reproduction, when, if those characteristics are subtle in difference as between two sources, may require repeated 'scrutiny' to determine, as with evaluation of the soundness of an interpretation in psychotherapy: repeated re-visiting of the particular construction, possibly over weeks, months or longer, in the developing context provided by new information.
                                This is an important value of field observation: To determine what to test for. Otherwise, it is very difficult to design a test.

                                so, in other words, specialized knowledge is an aid in discerning subtle differences. this is also a factor in auditioning audiophile performance.
                                Specialized knowledge is a superb aid in refining the definition of any subject. However, once the definition is down, it should be objectively testable.

                                the difference, is that the wine expert is distinguishing between two real wines - hard to blind him as to which is the real wine, and which is water, now isn't it?
                                Obviously not. But a control group is not necessarily sham. It is often another treatment, or wine, or whatever.

                                obviously, that is your claim. but being adamant about blinding doesn't help you correct for the fact that the perception of well-being may be partly dependent on knowing whether the real medicine is being given: without that, it is not possible to pursue ongoing evaluation of patient (subject) response, in a developing context. even, for example, in a clinical proving, the homeopath will compare the responses of all of the members of a group: in this way, he will have a context to determine whether a questionable response from one prover is an individual, normal fluctuation in his state of 'being,' or a response to the remedy: if none of the other provers show the same symptom, it lends weight to interpreting the response as a normal fluctuation; if several other provers show the same response, that suggests that it is an effect of the prover. so this is another way in which knowing whether the remedy is real, is necessary for distinguishing its effects, and why blinding may in fact actively interfere with judgment.
                                Well, he has to assume that it is real. The practitioner must try to treat all ceses as if they belonged to the verum group. Of course, knowing that he participates in an experiment will always influence him, but that influence is the same on all groups.

                                listening is not electronics, of course, but in any case you have not said what it is you consider to be implausible, or 'outrageous.'
                                Electronics is not listening, but electronics define the reality of what you can listen to.

                                Examples of categories:

                                Plausible: Class A amplifiers, discrete buildups in favor of monolithic ICs
                                Hey! My mouse just died. So bear with formatting from now..

                                Implausible: Anything but qopper gauge for speaker cables. Anything over normal good quality of signal cables.

                                Outrageous: Special warnish to put on ICs, special power cables.

                                Outer space: Chips that can upgrade CD disks remotely.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X