"Sceptic's tests support homoeopathy" story

Peanut

jawlie wrote:

...Having had over 200 years to come up with proof so far, and not having been able to produce any, it seems unclear why you feel the next "15 to 20" years will suddenly yield such proof.

Yes it's just a subjective opinion, however I think that it's only recently that the means to probe the fine detail needed has become available, or will become available.

The controversial nature of the subject also hinders the process - no-one wants to be labelled a crank.

jawlie wrote:

...Might that be because it has never occurred to a single one of them to undertake them? Or could it be because the results might not back up their claims for their products?

You still believe that there is a conspiracy of a non-research agenda?
Well, I really don't think there is.

By the way, I don't think I replied to your strength comparison properly earlier -

jawlie wrote:

"So I asked him if it was true, in homoeopathy, that less really was more effective for curing disease and that, for example, the 200th potency was actually stronger than the 6th potency?"

There is little or none of the original substance present in a homeopathic potency, so you can't compare strength like you do with conventional drugs.

You can't compare 6c and 200c potencies like you would compare 200mg and 500mg paracetamol, for example, because you are not using the same mode of measurement. You are using mass of a substance (paracetamol) for one expression of strength, and amount of 'processing' for another expression, so to try to equate the two is meaningless.

Myksyk

Peanut wrote:

I think that it's only recently that the means to probe the fine detail needed has become available, or will become available.

I'm intrigued. What do you mean 'has become available' ... what has become available?

Peanut

Myksyk wrote:

I'm intrigued. What do you mean 'has become available' ... what has become available?

Nothing specific, except for modern techniques like using laser, x-ray, supercomputer simulations etc., and other technologies that become available as part of research into other areas.

A page here (non-homeopathy related) details some recent research methods for investigating properties of water.

The reason I mention this is because, if there is a tangible effect created by the homeopathic processing of a solvent, then it is clearly not distinguishable as a large-scale physical characteristic, and will need more detailed investigation.

I am saying that if you believe there is an effect, then it rationally follows that past technology and/or research efforts has not been sufficient to find it.

I am not saying something along the lines of - "the inadequacies of previous research justify a belief that efficacy of homeopathic substances will be found in the future" - that is clearly a non-argument.

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

I am saying that if you believe there is an effect, then it rationally follows that past technology and/or research efforts has not been sufficient to find it.

You seem to be putting your money on the former, and not the latter...saying that its the tech that was inadequate, not the research.

Myksyk

Peanut wrote:

... if there is a tangible effect created by the homeopathic processing of a solvent, then it is clearly not distinguishable as a large-scale physical characteristic, and will need more detailed investigation.

I am saying that if you believe there is an effect, then it rationally follows that past technology and/or research efforts has not been sufficient to find it.

This is an argument you can use without end and which can be used for every inert idea and practice on the planet.

Given that, in 200 years, no discernable effect of homepoathic substances has been demonstrated beyond what is explained by any number of other non-specific factors; surely the only reasonable, rational position to take now is one of cautious pessimism about the validity of the ideas intrinsic to homeopathy. You're holding out hope that some day, new unspecified technologies will explain properties in water which have never even been demonstrated in the first place. Sorry but this strikes me as bemusingly unreasonable and has more in common with the belief dynamics of religion than science.

Peanut

bonkey wrote:

You seem to be putting your money on the former, and not the latter...saying that its the tech that was inadequate, not the research.

Yes, to an extent.

Myksyk wrote:

This is an argument you can use without end and which can be used for every inert idea and practice on the planet.

I thought someone might reply with this - this is the reason I prefixed with "If you believe there is an effect" - it is not an objective argument for or against the level of evidence, I think I am very clear when I am saying it's a position you might take if you had already made up your mind in a certain way.

Myksyk wrote:

...surely the only reasonable, rational position to take now rational position to take now is one of cautious pessimism about the validity of the ideas intrinsic to homeopathy.

I think it's fair to say that cautious pessimism is a bit of a euphenism considering some previous comments here.

Myksyk wrote:

Given that, in 200 years, no discernable effect of homepoathic substances has been demonstrated beyond what is explained by any number of other non-specific factors;

You want a high level of repeatability before you accept something, that's fine, but let others consider all the possibilities before deciding for themselves.

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

Yes, to an extent.

So thats alse no - to an extent - then?

You want a high level of repeatability before you accept something, that's fine, but let others consider all the possibilities before deciding for themselves.

This comment worries me slightly.

Its not just Myksyk who wants a high level of repeatability. It is the default stance of the scientific community. It is also one of many benchmarks which is set for something to be considered a valid form of medicine.

Apply your comment to something other than homeopathy. Do you think its still reasonable?

You seem to be arguing that anyone should be allowed market anything under any claims they like, and to allow the consumer the freedom of believing whatever they like.

So if I sell tapwater as a potion which delays the onset of male pattern baldness....thats ok in your book? I don't need to be able to show that my snake-oil produces an effect distinguishable from the "background noise". I can just make my claims and fob my product on a public and let them make up their mind.

Where do we draw the line? Can I sell people false hope for terminal illnesses? Can I claim that my bottle of seawater slows the onset of AIDS, even though there's no high degree of repeatability, or indeed anything to distinguish from the Placebo Effect? Is that OK in your book...that I can do this and the objections of the scientific community should only go as far as putting a counter-argument forward, and we both see who the HIV-sufferer chooses to believe?

The standard of "unproven means it shouldn't be banned - let the potential customer decide" is, I would argue, not one I could subscribe to. Its almost asking charlatans to prey on the desperate.

Peanut

bonkey wrote:

So thats alse no - to an extent - then?

Mostly the former

bonkey wrote:

Peanut wrote:

You want a high level of repeatability before you accept something, that's fine, but let others consider all the possibilities before deciding for themselves.

This comment worries me slightly.

Its not just Myksyk who wants a high level of repeatability. It is the default stance of the scientific community. It is also one of many benchmarks which is set for something to be considered a valid form of medicine.

Yes I agree that repeatable effect should be a strong requirement for considering a particular medicine valid, although it does not have to be an absolute must.

bonkey wrote:

Apply your comment to something other than homeopathy. Do you think its still reasonable?

Yes I believe it is, because I was referring to repeatability in research, not the issue of how it is marketed to the consumer.

For the purposes of your analogy, let's say that the comment was referring to the effectiveness of some new anti-cancer drug.

It's not difficult to imagine that it may not give the same results in each patient in a clinical trial, and you may not be able to say whether it will be effective for a given patient.

Still, you wouldn't abandon research on it just because you got mixed results and didn't understand the mode of action well enough to predict when it would be effective.

I do understand your point however that you wouldn't bring such a drug to market either, however that is a separate question, and not the context I used the comment in.

bonkey wrote:

You seem to be arguing that anyone should be allowed market anything under any claims they like, and to allow the consumer the freedom of believing whatever they like.

No, I don't agree with that.

bonkey wrote:

Where do we draw the line?
...
The standard of "unproven means it shouldn't be banned - let the potential customer decide" is, I would argue, not one I could subscribe to. Its almost asking charlatans to prey on the desperate.

And where do we draw the line in the opposite direction?

Would you ban all non-conventional forms of medicine because they may not have shown a clear remedial effect in all indicated situations, even though in individual cases, they may have provided considerable benefit?

For example, it's not clear whether even something as commonplace as vitamin and mineral supplements are of any benefit to most people, would you ban them because of this?

Myksyk

Peanut wrote:

I thought someone might reply with this - this is the reason I prefixed with "If you believe there is an effect" - it is not an objective argument for or against the level of evidence, I think I am very clear when I am saying it's a position you might take if you had already made up your mind in a certain way.

This is the nub of the position. I see that you believe in this whether the evidence supports you or not. I don't know why anyone would take such a position... but that's your perogative.

Peanut wrote:

I think it's fair to say that cautious pessimism is a bit of a euphenism considering some previous comments here.

Well I was rather hoping that's a position YOU might consider taking ... I think based on our available knowledge and evidence that homeopathy is wholesale bunkum.

Peanut wrote:

You want a high level of repeatability before you accept something, that's fine, but let others consider all the possibilities before deciding for themselves.

Yep, in matters of medicine I want good evidence before I accept they work. That seems reasonable to me. You seem happy to take strong positions on the effectiveness of putative 'medicine' based on intuition, anecdote and personal interpretations of experience.

Peanut

Myksyk wrote:

This is the nub of the position. I see that you believe in this whether the evidence supports you or not. I don't know why anyone would take such a position... but that's your perogative.

Subjectively, according to your interpretation of the evidence.

Myksyk wrote:

Yep, in matters of medicine I want good evidence before I accept they work. That seems reasonable to me. You seem happy to take strong positions on the effectiveness of putative 'medicine' based on intuition, anecdote and personal interpretations of experience.

I think a rational position is to be open when it appears that there is a resaonable level of doubt on a given question.

I believe there are enough reasons to accept that there is a reasonable doubt on this issue - you don't - we are not going to agree.

Myksyk

Peanut wrote:

Subjectively, according to your interpretation of the evidence.

I'm convinced by the glaring lack of evidence. But let's not be disingenuous, I don't believe for a minute that you are convinced of the effectiveness of homeopathy on the basis of research evidence. It's clear you'd believe in it if there wasn't a single paper (good, bad or indifferent) published on it.

I think a rational position is to be open when it appears that there is a resaonable level of doubt on a given question.

This is where i think you are being (literally) un-reason-able. Given that it is not possible to prove something wrong in science and that claims must be shown to be likely true by the accumulation of evidence in their favour, it then holds that ALL inert ideas (not having been 'proven'to be wrongheaded) can be presented as somehow having a reasonable level of doubt about them.

In practice, this means I can think up the most ridiculous new CAM practice with a suitably implausible accompanying theory - let's say that I claim that placing certain-sized pebbles on the crown of your head cures all manner of ailments and can do so by dint of the fact that the physical energies trapped in the pebbles over countless aeons of pressure can 'somehow' (e.g. when rubbed prior to placement by a Master Practitioner) transfer specific wavelengths of energy to brain areas responsible for immune responses and healing. Science can't explain the complex physics involved with its current level of knowledge but 'one day' my theory will likely be demonstrated to be true when we have the right technology.

By default the 'treatment' will be seen to have some effect in some people because of known non-specifics. There is no way that science can prove the theory to be wrong but this does not then constitute 'reasonable doubt' about the theory. I don't see homeopathy as in any way different to this example.

In this regard, we definitely don't agree on is what constitutes a 'reasaonable level of doubt'.

jawlie

Jawlie wrote:

By any measure it is highly strange that out of Boiron and all the other rich and succesful homoeopathic companies the world over, not one has ever published the results of any properly conducted and accepted independent double blind and peer reviewed clinical trials in the way that every single manufacturer of conventional medicine does for every single product.

Peanut wrote:

You still believe that there is a conspiracy of a non-research agenda?
Well, I really don't think there is.

I think it might be reasonable if the large, and highly profitable, homoeopathic companies, such as Boiron, would want to prove that homoeopathy "works". It would be unusual , indeed, for a company who makes the claims they do for their remedies, to continue with doubt and the sort of criticism their claims attract if they have it in their power (and they do) to finally prove it . Quite apart, of course, from the huge surge in business once their claims are proven, and the huge benefits to mankind.

Perhaps you might like to speculate as to why they have never published the results of properly conducted, clinical trials, the results of which are repeatable and subject to scrutiny and peer review?

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

And where do we draw the line in the opposite direction?

Would you ban all non-conventional forms of medicine because they may not have shown a clear remedial effect in all indicated situations, even though in individual cases, they may have provided considerable benefit?

No, I would ban* all forms of medicine - conventional or otherwise - which cannot demonstrate a reproducible, beneficial, effect which is clearly distinguishable from placebo effects and background noise.

* More correctly, I would not allow them to be sold in the same shops, would not allow them to claim medicinal effects in advertising, nor would I allow them to be covered under any medicial insurance scheme or health-care.

For example, it's not clear whether even something as commonplace as vitamin and mineral supplements are of any benefit to most people, would you ban them because of this?

I'd need more information about how you define "most people" and what you mean by "not clear".

Most people who take mineral and vitamin supplements quite possibly don't need them. In such cases, I'd be astounded if the supplements caused any beneficial side effects.

On the other hand, we know that prolonged deficiency in vitamins and minerals does have side-effects.

Therefore, as a preventative measure, I see little harm in taking vitamins and minerals that the individual does not necessarily need (as long as it is measured to not induce problems from excesses).

As a curative measure, I would argue that there is absolute and clear evidence of the efficacy of minerals and vitamins.

Of course, if homeopathy would like to demonstrate something along the lines of a demonstrably efficacious cure for scurvy through the administration of water...I'm open to changing my position.

As for the current standards...I'd be the first to agree that the marketing standards for various mineral and vitamin supplements is too low. However, as a proven curative, I would not see the correction of that issue resulting in a ban of these things.

Zombrex

Peanut wrote:

I believe there are enough reasons to accept that there is a reasonable doubt on this issue

I think the use of the word doubt there is quite telling.

You seem to be saying that until it is demonstrated to you that it doesn't work, you will continue to hold that it might work. That in the doubt of whether or not it does or does not work, it is acceptable for the belief to live that it does actually work

That is actually the exact opposite of how science is supposed to work.

In fact it sounds very much like something a Christian Creationists would say.

One is forced to wonder what is the motivation you have for thinking this stuff might work?

If it has yet to be properly demonstrated that it does work why move from the default position that it doesn't work.

This question goes to the heart of homeopathy. It seems to be something that people hope works, more than anything else, because it provides a solution to various medical problems that is easy and cheap.

But just like the Creationists, hope often clouds people to looking at a topic rationally.

Peanut

Myksyk wrote:

I don't believe for a minute that you are convinced of the effectiveness of homeopathy on the basis of research evidence.

You're right - I have never said that the research was convincing enough to be conclusive - however this is not the same as saying "it's all hogwash" - I hope you appreciate the difference.

The default skeptic stance, and I am not at all surprised by this, is that there are statements to the effect of taking a hardline position on something that is more nebulous. You effectively ignore any research that doesn't agree with the skeptic hypothesis.

You can't seem to say "We do not believe the weight of evidence suggest that homeopathy is effective beyond placebo", instead it's - "There is no evidence that homeopathy is effective".

Hey, it's not as good a soundbite, but it's your call.

Myksyk wrote:

...There is no way that science can prove the theory to be wrong but this does not then constitute 'reasonable doubt' about the theory.
I don't see homeopathy as in any way different to this example.

Sorry, since when was my argument 'science can not prove it wrong, therefore it could be right' ??!

I thought I spelled this out in previous posts.

If you are referring to my post where I suspected efficiacy would be demonstrated in the medium term future - that is my speculative position, I am not arguing that this represents a critique of the current situation.

Bonkey wrote:

...* More correctly, I would not allow them to be sold in the same shops, would not allow them to claim medicinal effects in advertising, nor would I allow them to be covered under any medicial insurance scheme or health-care.

I would have no problem with that also, few people desire a total nanny-state. I don't particularly like the idea of interfering with insurance schemes however, as it smacks of restricting free trade and enterprise.

An example - the effectiveness of Acupuncture has been considered controversial in the past, however there is now strong evidence that it is at least as effective as drugs in the control of certain types of pain. By your criteria, patients would be deprived of beneficial treatments due to your unreasonable restrictions.

This is the unavoidable fault of a hardline skeptical viewpoint - you wish to protect the public from making bad decisions - if you go too far however, you will end up hurting them instead.

Bonkey wrote:

As a curative measure, I would argue that there is absolute and clear evidence of the efficacy of minerals and vitamins.

Great, so what are your plans for so many years of Vitamin C advertising in relation to colds and flu?

Wicknight wrote:

I think the use of the word doubt there is quite telling.

You seem to be saying that until it is demonstrated to you that it doesn't work, you will continue to hold that it might work. That in the doubt of whether or not it does or does not work, it is acceptable for the belief to live that it does actually work

You can read it whichever way you wish, however doubt is just another word for uncertainty, something seemingly anathemic to some people.

Wicknight wrote:

If it has yet to be properly demonstrated that it does work why move from the default position that it doesn't work.

Who's default position is this?

I'm presuming it's yours as a skeptic, it certainly wouldn't be a homeopaths.
Of course you will argue that your 'default' is a universal default, but that's your right.

You don't like uncertainty, I am willing to accomodate it when I think it's reasonable. I think it is - you don't.

Peanut

jawlie wrote:

Perhaps you might like to speculate as to why they have never published the results of properly conducted, clinical trials, the results of which are repeatable and subject to scrutiny and peer review?

They have funded published research, so of course it is subject to
scrutiny.

Whether it is repeatable or not is a separate question, however your
assertion that they do not fund research due to some no-confidence
agenda is not especially compelling.

Some examples,

"Biological activity of some anti-mitotics* in ultra-low doses...This work was funded by the Boiron Research Foundation."

"A comprehensive study on arsenic toxicity and its amelioration by administration of ultra-low doses of homeopathic drugs. . funded by Boiron Research Laboratory ,France "

"The combined results and a meta-analysis of three double-blind clinical trials found that individual homeopathic treatments significantly decrease the duration of acute childhood diarrhea ...The project by Jacobs et al. was funded by the Boiron Research Foundation"

etc...

Myksyk

Peanut wrote:

You're right - I have never said that the research was convincing enough to be conclusive

Yet you conclude that homeopathy is effective.

You can't seem to say "We do not believe the weight of evidence suggest that homeopathy is effective beyond placebo", instead it's - "There is no evidence that homeopathy is effective".

The former statement perfectly sums up my position. So does the latter.

Who's default position is this?

I'm presuming it's yours as a skeptic, it certainly wouldn't be a homeopaths.
Of course you will argue that your 'default' is a universal default, but that's your right.

It's the default position of science.

And at least we are aware that your argument has nothing to do with science.

One question (given I can make no sense of the rationale you apply to your judgements in this area) ... what criteria do you apply to judge a therapy ineffective or useless?

Peanut

Myksyk wrote:

Yet you conclude that homeopathy is effective.

Did you actually read my posts or just assume what I wrote?

I speculate that it is effective, I don't conclude from the current evidence that it is.

Myksyk wrote:

Peanut wrote:

"We do not believe the weight of evidence suggest that homeopathy is effective beyond placebo"

"There is no evidence that homeopathy is effective".

The former statement perfectly sums up my position. So does the latter.

Yet they are different statements.

If you can't see the difference, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Myksyk wrote:

It's the default position of science.

And what exactly is science do you think?

You reference it as if there is some magical entity out there called 'science' which has a definitive position on all questions. Unfortunately, that is not the way things work, however, I'm sure you are aware of that.

Myksyk wrote:

And at least we are aware that your argument has nothing to do with science.

From your replies (and from others), I don't think you fully understand what my argument is.

I don't mean this in a malicious way, maybe I haven't been clear enough, but it's all there in previous posts.

Myksyk wrote:

One question (given I can make no sense of the rationale you apply to your judgements in this area) ... what criteria do you apply to judge a therapy ineffective or useless?

Consistent lack of apparent benefit across a broad range of trial environments.

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

I speculate that it is effective, I don't conclude from the current evidence that it is.

Just to make sure I understand you here...

You said a few posts back you would have no problem with my stance regarding any conventional or alternative medicine, in that it could not claim medicinal effects in advertising which had not been adequately established.

You're going to great lengths to make a distinction between being seen as someone who is saying homeopathy is effective (which you claim you're not) and someone who has said they believe it might be.

So, in general, you agree that homeopathy should not be permitted to be marketed as being beneficial...do I have that right? After all, you agree that the current evidence doesn't lead you to conclude that it is beneficial.

So, if I understand correctly, you think that people should be allowed to choose to use homeopathy, but would agree that a ban on marketing it as being beneficial would be ok given its current status, and that while that status remains that medical insurance / aid should not pay for it. Is that an accurate summation of your position, or have I misunderstood something?

Yet they are different statements.

That depends on which way you look at it. If there is no evidence, then the total weight of evidence is insufficient. Thus, its possible to agree with both statements without a contradiction.

If you can't see the difference, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

You may be a bit hasty here...

It may be a case of thrashing out what constitutes "evidence".

Some people will say that there's tons of evidence in the form of anecdote, for example, where others will say that this doesn't constitute evidence. So from the perspective of those who say anecdote is evidence (even if they admit that its not good evidence) those two statements are irreconcilable, whereas from the perspective of the person who says "its only evidence once its of a certain quality", its still possible to agree to both.

So, while you may see the existence of tests and results as evidence, Myksyk may disagree that those tests and results constitute evidence because they are of insufficient quality.

And what exactly is science do you think?

What science isn't is speculating that something might be effective whilst agreeing that the evidence doesn't conclude efficacity.

Note - a scientist is perfectly entitled to hold any belief they like. It is these beliefs which often lead them to new breakthroughs.

In broad terms, the argument that something "might be so" is non-scientific.

Consistent lack of apparent benefit across a broad range of trial environments.

Not a lack of consistent benefit?

So if one trial in 100 shows a benefit, but the other 99 do not, there is an inconsistency in the lack of benefit and thats enough for you?

Given you earlier questions to me regarding vitamins - do you extend the same criteria to their usage? That if any trials show a benefit, thats enough to mean we shouldn't write it off? I ask because it seems not.

Peanut

bonkey wrote:

...
So, in general, you agree that homeopathy should not be permitted to be marketed as being beneficial...do I have that right? After all, you agree that the current evidence doesn't lead you to conclude that it is beneficial.

Yes I think the current situation is quite fair, in that all homeopathic products have "A homeopathic medicinal product without approved therapeutic indications." marked on them (I believe this is an EU regulation).

I don't really see how anyone can argue that Homeopathy is being unreasonably pushed in the marketplace, given that (at least in this country) there is no mainstream advertising for it at all. If you argue that Homeopaths expressing their favourable opinion towards it is unacceptable, then I really think that is going too far.

bonkey wrote:

So, if I understand correctly, you think that people should be allowed to choose to use homeopathy, but would agree that a ban on marketing it as being beneficial would be ok given its current status, and that while that status remains that medical insurance / aid should not pay for it. Is that an accurate summation of your position, or have I misunderstood something?

That sounds reasonable, except for the medical insurance - I think people should have the same choice in insurance provider offerings as they do when buying other products.

bonkey wrote:

That depends on which way you look at it. If there is no evidence, then the total weight of evidence is insufficient. Thus, its possible to agree with both statements without a contradiction.

You can semantically argue what "evidence" is.

My point is that the effective view being pushed is that there are no positive trial results in favour of homeopathy, which is incorrect. This is what the statement "There is no evidence" implies.

bonkey wrote:

...So, while you may see the existence of tests and results as evidence, Myksyk may disagree that those tests and results constitute evidence because they are of insufficient quality.

Yes, of course. This is the nub of the issue.

bonkey wrote:

What science isn't is speculating that something might be effective whilst agreeing that the evidence doesn't conclude efficacity.

I make no claims that the art of speculation is necessarily scientific

bonkey wrote:

Peanut wrote:

Consistent lack of apparent benefit across a broad range of trial environments.

Not a lack of consistent benefit?

So if one trial in 100 shows a benefit, but the other 99 do not, there is an inconsistency in the lack of benefit and thats enough for you?

Of course not - 99 out of 100 implies a high degree of "consistent lack", assuming that they are actually trialling what they claim to trial.

bonkey wrote:

Given you earlier questions to me regarding vitamins - do you extend the same criteria to their usage? That if any trials show a benefit, thats enough to mean we shouldn't write it off? I ask because it seems not.

You want me to say that if a single trial shows a benefit, then that's good enough?

I am not going to say that, what I will say however is that something should not be banned and/or mis-represented purely because it has a perceived low degree of application.

In this regard, you still haven't answered my question in relation to Vitamin C.

And you seem to have skirted the example of Acupuncture as a demonstration of the inadequacies of the approaches promoted here.

jawlie

jawlie wrote:

I think it might be reasonable if the large, and highly profitable, homoeopathic companies, such as Boiron, would want to prove that homoeopathy "works". It would be unusual , indeed, for a company who makes the claims they do for their remedies, to continue with doubt and the sort of criticism their claims attract if they have it in their power (and they do) to finally prove it . Quite apart, of course, from the huge surge in business once their claims are proven, and the huge benefits to mankind.

Perhaps you might like to speculate as to why they have never published the results of properly conducted, clinical trials, the results of which are repeatable and subject to scrutiny and peer review?

I'm still curious as to why you think this might be? In your earlier answer you didn't say why you think this might be, but just said that they had funded published research and gave some examples.

Do you think it possible they have also funded research thay they have not published?

Are you not curious as to why they have never published results of properly conducted, clinical double blind trials of their products versus placebo, to conclusively prove the efficacy of their products? I am.

bonkey

Peanut wrote:

In this regard, you still haven't answered my question in relation to Vitamin C.

I didn't answer it because I gave you my broad position regarding all medicinal claims. If you know (and I suspect you do) where Vitamin C fits in regard to the accuracy of its claims, then you can determine my stance on it.

And you seem to have skirted the example of Acupuncture as a demonstration of the inadequacies of the approaches promoted here.

How? No-one has made a case that my overall stance or the appraoches promoted here don't apply to something such as acupuncture.

On that note, though...are you aware that in a recent test, acupuncture failed to distinguish itself statistically in efficacy from "pretend acupuncture" (aka the placebo effect) ???

davros

bonkey wrote: »

On that note, though...are you aware that in a recent test, acupuncture failed to distinguish itself statistically in efficacy from "pretend acupuncture" (aka the placebo effect) ???

To qualify that statement slightly, the study established that the use of acupuncture needles to treat lower back pain was twice as effective as conventional treatment. It did not matter, however, whether or not the needles were used according to the meridian theory of acupuncture.

So it's true that real and sham acupuncture achieved the same result, but it was still a very positive result and not necessarily explainable by the placebo effect. I would have expected the placebo effect to be equally strong for the conventional techniques explored (drugs, exercise, physical therapy).

jawlie

davros wrote: »

To qualify that statement slightly, the study established that the use of acupuncture needles to treat lower back pain was twice as effective as conventional treatment. It did not matter, however, whether or not the needles were used according to the meridian theory of acupuncture.

So it's true that real and sham acupuncture achieved the same result, but it was still a very positive result and not necessarily explainable by the placebo effect. I would have expected the placebo effect to be equally strong for the conventional techniques explored (drugs, exercise, physical therapy).

How can "sham acupuncture" achieving the same result as "real" acupuncture be a very positive result? Fow whom is it a positive result? Not the "real" acupuncturists, thats for sure!

davros

jawlie wrote: »

How can "sham acupuncture" achieving the same result as "real" acupuncture be a very positive result? Fow whom is it a positive result? Not the "real" acupuncturists, thats for sure!

For the patient.

What I would expect to happen now is that there will be more trials seeking to replicate these findings and, if it is confirmed, needle-sticking will become part of the standard suite of treatments offered for lower back pain. It's not acupuncture any more, it's just one more part of evidence-based modern medicine.

jawlie

davros wrote: »

For the patient.

What I would expect to happen now is that there will be more trials seeking to replicate these findings and, if it is confirmed, needle-sticking will become part of the standard suite of treatments offered for lower back pain. It's not acupuncture any more, it's just one more part of evidence-based modern medicine.

We all know how homoeopathy started. The good doctor gave amounts of different substances to "well" people, noted what he assumed were the results, and them came up with the theory that if someone was suffering the same symptoms, you give then the substance which produced those symptoms in a well person to cure their symptoms.

I wonder how acupuncture started? Did someone just come up with the idea in a eureka moment and then ask his friend if he could see what the effect of inserting a few needels at random might have?

jawlie

I read this article in the Guardian and found it interesting and informative. It's also interesting to click on the original article by Jeanette Winterson which is long on anecdote and short on fact.


http://www.badscience.net/?p=578#more-578

Peanut

Guys..

Ultimately what I am saying is that there are often as many negative consequences in holding a hardline skeptical viewpoint, as there are for being excessively permissive.

People on this forum have in the past called for GPs practicing as Acupuncturists to be struck off the medical register.

Since it turns out, that in all likelihood they were probably providing a benefical service to their patients, it is slightly galling to think of the consequences if the previous sentiment was followed through.


Jawlie, I don't see a reason for your attempts to poke fun at what you think were the origins of a given methodology.

I can only conclude that because they seem alien to you, you feel the need to mock them.

jawlie

Peanut wrote: »

Guys..

Ultimately what I am saying is that there are often as many negative consequences in holding a hardline skeptical viewpoint....

Jawlie, I don't see a reason for your attempts to poke fun at what you think were the origins of a given methodology.

I can only conclude that because they seem alien to you, you feel the need to mock them.

I find humour in all sorts of things and am sad that you can't see the humour in the idea of acupuncture. However, that's just the difference in our personalities, I guess, and not really important for the purposes of boards.ie

I'm not sure what the difference is between a sceptic and a hardline sceptic. To me, a sceptic is someone who requires proper proof before accepting a claim.

The antithesis of a sceptic is someone who is credulous and believes the claims of others without proper proof.

For instance, many credulous people believe that Uri Gellar has psychic powers and can bend spoons and so on using his psychic powers. Sceptics do not believe Mr Gellar can bend spoons and so on by psychic powers, largely because there is no proper proof to support this.

Wanting to believe in Uri Gellar does not make him able to bend spoons with psychic powers, and wanting to believe in, for example, homoeopathy, does not mean homoeopathy has produced proper proof either.

As someone pointed out before, the only intelligent position is that of a sceptic (ie needing proper proof before accepting something as true), and to be credulous is simply not an intelligent position.

Peanut

Sorry, I just didn't find it especially amusing :-p

It's like saying, I wonder how fire was tamed, was it just some guy rubbing sticks together.. Perhaps it was though.

Re: skepticism, it's not really very descriptive to claim you are a 'skeptic' as it's quite a broad term. The devil is in the details.

I don't mean to be rude, but the "either you are with us or you are against us" ethic that you describe is not very useful, as it tends to discount the possibilty of a middle way. This can have unfortunate consequences as opinion is polarised, and emotion overcomes rational debate, a valid example being the acupuncture reference above.