"Sceptic's tests support homoeopathy" story

jawlie

Peanut wrote: »

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 tried to define what i mean by sceptic and to avoid the term being misunderstood. It seems quite a specific definition, but you think it's too broad a definition ("a sceptic is someone who requires proper proof before accepting a claim")?

Peanut wrote: »

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.

Are you suggesting that there is an alternative or “middle ground” to either being sceptical or credulous as to whether one believes or not in whether, for example, homoeopathy “works”?

I think the only intelligent position is to be sceptical (ie to want proper proof before accepting a hypothesis as valid). It seems incredible that someone might argue that it is the intelligent position to believe something is valid and “works” without proper proof.

I know people who believe in Feng Shuay, that they are riddled with candidisys, that homoeopathy can cure malaria, that Uri Gellar can bend spoons with his mind and that Una Power on 98FM really has psychic ability.

Where we seem to differ is that I require proper proof before believing in these sorts of phenomena, whereas you seem to be saying that proper proof is not necessary to asses whether these claims are true?

Peanut

jawlie wrote: »

I tried to define what i mean by sceptic and to avoid the term being misunderstood. It seems quite a specific definition, but you think it's too broad a definition ("a sceptic is someone who requires proper proof before accepting a claim")?

Well that is a basic definition. But we don't necessarily agree on what consititutes "proof". Remember that as has been stated here many times, science is not in the business of proof. We just evaluate the evidence the best way we see fit.

jawlie wrote: »

Are you suggesting that there is an alternative or “middle ground” to either being sceptical or credulous as to whether one believes or not in whether, for example, homoeopathy “works”?

Yes of course. If you try to split the world into little boxes that says "works" or "doesn't work", then you will more than likely be throwing away a lot of the fine detail.

For a given specific case, you can more confidently say something works or doesn't work, but to extend this to all generalised cases is bad science.

Like the old joke, if you think gravity is only a theory, try jumping off a cliff.
We can have pretty strong confidence that our concept of gravity will hold true in most situations where we will experience it ourselves.

However, it is an absolutely critical point of scientific inquiry that we do not confuse this with the statement 'Gravity will act the same in all situations'.

Therefore, to say gravity "works" or "doesn't work" is a meaningless over-simplifcation.

jawlie wrote: »

.. It seems incredible that someone might argue that it is the intelligent position to believe something is valid and “works” without proper proof.
..

Again, we are not in the business of proof, so we may have different interpretations of evidence.

If you accept, and I suggest you do, that proof is a concept mostly useful in maths and abstract reasoning, instead of evaluating the physical world, then it logically follows that we absolutely must consider differing degrees of evidence when looking at a subject.

jawlie

Peanut wrote: »

Well that is a basic definition. But we don't necessarily agree on what consititutes "proof". Remember that as has been stated here many times, science is not in the business of proof. We just evaluate the evidence the best way we see fit.

Peanut wrote: »

Peanut wrote: »

For a given specific case, you can more confidently say something works or doesn't work, but to extend this to all generalised cases is bad science.

Again, we are not in the business of proof, so we may have different interpretations of evidence.

If you accept, and I suggest you do, that proof is a concept mostly useful in maths and abstract reasoning, instead of evaluating the physical world, then it logically follows that we absolutely must consider differing degrees of evidence when looking at a subject.

Obviously we are not going to agree and have different points of view. I think the proof ( or evidence if you'd rather use that word ) relating to homoeopathy is not sufficient to claim that homoeopathy works. (Your view seems to be the opposite, but thats not very clear.) The homoeopathic industry and others claim homoeopathy does work, and I don't accept their proof (or evidence) is convincing.

Peanut

jawlie wrote: »

I think the proof ( or evidence if you'd rather use that word ) relating to homoeopathy is not sufficient to claim that homoeopathy works.

I agree.

jawlie wrote: »

(Your view seems to be the opposite, but thats not very clear.)

The difference is that, while I agree that there is not sufficient evidence to strongly claim that it works, I believe that there is at least some evidence, and that this evidence is being unfairly dismissed, often by very weak arguments such as the perennial 'We don't know how it could work, therefore it can't possibly work'.

My personal opinion is that it does work, in certain situations. This is based primarily on repeated trial and observation, over a long period of time. However, I will of course not argue that this represents any sort of objective evidence.

jawlie wrote: »

The homoeopathic industry and others claim homoeopathy does work, and I don't accept their proof (or evidence) is convincing.

That's completely understandable.

jawlie

Peanut wrote: »

The difference is that, while I agree that there is not sufficient evidence to strongly claim that it works,

By stating you don't believe there is "sufficient evidence" implies you expect a sufficiency of evidence to be produced at some stage. Homoeopathy has been around now for around 250 years and has still failed to come up with sufficient evidence. How much longer do you think it might take?

Peanut wrote: »

I believe that there is at least some evidence, and that this evidence is being unfairly dismissed, often by very weak arguments such as the perennial 'We don't know how it could work, therefore it can't possibly work'.

From my observation, people who are asking for evidence that homoeopathy works are not concerned by how it works.

The how it works is often introduced by those who either believe homoeopathy works, or by those who have an interest in the subject, to create a smokescreen as to the lack of evidence that it works. (Just as you have done here in fact! )

Peanut wrote: »

I believe that there is at least some evidence, and that this evidence is being unfairly dismissed, ...this is based primarily on repeated trial and observation, over a long period of time.

I believe there is at least some evidence that Una Power on 98FM gets things right...this is based primarily on repeated trial and observation, over a long period of time.

However, this is not the same thing at all to say that she gets it right all the time, or even half the time, or even 10% of the time.

We would expect Una Power, or anyone, to get some things right some of the time by chance alone, just as we would expect "homoeopathy" to appear to cure illness by chance, as we would by rubbing clay into the feet, or waving a magic wand over a patients head. 90% of patients who are ill get cured with no intervention at all, and it is a mistake to ascribe the natural healing powers of the body to homoeopathy, or clay being rubbed into the feet, or waving a magic want over a patients head.

I still hold the view that is seems incredible that, in its almost 250 year history, not one of the homoeopathic companies who make billions a year from selling what they refer to as their "remedies" have produced the results of a double blind clinical trial to back up the claims they make on behalf of their products. It seems unlikely that they have not undertaken such trials, or have overlooked and forgotten to undertake such trials to back up their claims, and opened up the results to peer review.

Could there be a more obvious reason why not one of them has done so?

Peanut

jawlie wrote: »

By stating you don't believe there is "sufficient evidence" implies you expect a sufficiency of evidence to be produced at some stage.

I wouldn't agree that it implies that at all.
But yes, as I stated before, I expect it will happen eventually.

jawlie wrote: »

Homoeopathy has been around now for around 250 years and has still failed to come up with sufficient evidence. How much longer do you think it might take?

How long is a piece of string...
I posted earlier that a very speculative guess would be 15-20 years time.

jawlie wrote: »

From my observation, people who are asking for evidence that homoeopathy works are not concerned by how it works.

Sorry jawlie you just lost me on that one!
I wholeheartedly disagree.

jawlie wrote: »

The how it works is often introduced by those who either believe homoeopathy works, or by those who have an interest in the subject, to create a smokescreen as to the lack of evidence that it works. (Just as you have done here in fact! )

Right.

jawlie wrote: »

....
I still hold the view that is seems incredible that, in its almost 250 year history, not one of the homoeopathic companies who make billions a year from selling what they refer to as their "remedies" have produced the results of a double blind clinical trial to back up the claims they make on behalf of their products.

I'll ignore the fact that you still seem to have somehow missed the methodologically sound trials which showed positive results for homeopathy. Your real problem however is this -

Many people seem to have a naivety about the scope of clinical trials.

Do you think they are a magic wand that can instantly prove or disprove a question, no matter what the case?

To go back to my earlier example of Vitamin C, an extremely common substance that has been chemically isolated for almost 100 years, and its preventative action on scurvy known about for much longer.

Why is there then still confusion as to whether or not it's benefical for colds and flu?

In fact, why is it that we still can't say for sure whether taking multivitamin supplements is actually benefical or detrimental to health?
...

It must be a big conspiracy!

Surely the food supplement companies would have demonstrated this by now, since they could then write ''This product Promotes good health" on their packets. After all, they dwarf the homeopathic manufacturers in terms of size, and available resources.

...
It turns out that the answer is not as simple as you would like it to be.

Recently research has suggested that Vitamin C does not significantly protect people from colds unless they are being exposed to periods of high stress, in which case the risk was reduced by half.

Why did it take over 100 years to find this out?

The answer is that clinical trials are not easy, especially when humans are the subject material. They are resource intensive, and often complex.

"Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough" - Ibn al-Haytham, Pioneer of Optics

If we have a sufficiently complicated system (this could be, for instance, an eco-system, a financial market, or a biological body), then the number of interactions between parts of the system (dependencies), will usually increase exponentially the bigger and more complex the system is.

This can make it difficult, or even practically impossible to establish a given cause and effect in such a system.

This is not just an academic point - millions of euro are wasted each year because people consistently underestimate the effect of dependencies within complex system. You don't have to look very far for evidence, IT projects are notorious for this very reason - PPARS,
the credit union ISIS system, Garda PULSE system, and now a public services application,
Millions more wasted on key hi-tech projects

And yet, IT projects are arguably a lot less complex than biological systems.

The point is, if you try to look for a quick and easy answer in evaluating something which is inherently not quick and easy, you will just end up chasing your own tail.

jawlie

Peanut wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that it implies that at all.
But yes, as I stated before, I expect it will happen eventually.


How long is a piece of string...
I posted earlier that a very speculative guess would be 15-20 years time.


Sorry jawlie you just lost me on that one!
I wholeheartedly disagree.


Right.



I'll ignore the fact that you still seem to have somehow missed the methodologically sound trials which showed positive results for homeopathy. Your real problem however is this -

Many people seem to have a naivety about the scope of clinical trials.

Do you think they are a magic wand that can instantly prove or disprove a question, no matter what the case?

To go back to my earlier example of Vitamin C, an extremely common substance that has been chemically isolated for almost 100 years, and its preventative action on scurvy known about for much longer.

Why is there then still confusion as to whether or not it's benefical for colds and flu?

In fact, why is it that we still can't say for sure whether taking multivitamin supplements is actually benefical or detrimental to health?
...

It must be a big conspiracy!

Surely the food supplement companies would have demonstrated this by now, since they could then write ''This product Promotes good health" on their packets. After all, they dwarf the homeopathic manufacturers in terms of size, and available resources.

...
It turns out that the answer is not as simple as you would like it to be.

Recently research has suggested that Vitamin C does not significantly protect people from colds unless they are being exposed to periods of high stress, in which case the risk was reduced by half.

Why did it take over 100 years to find this out?

The answer is that clinical trials are not easy, especially when humans are the subject material. They are resource intensive, and often complex.

"Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough" - Ibn al-Haytham, Pioneer of Optics

If we have a sufficiently complicated system (this could be, for instance, an eco-system, a financial market, or a biological body), then the number of interactions between parts of the system (dependencies), will usually increase exponentially the bigger and more complex the system is.

This can make it difficult, or even practically impossible to establish a given cause and effect in such a system.

This is not just an academic point - millions of euro are wasted each year because people consistently underestimate the effect of dependencies within complex system. You don't have to look very far for evidence, IT projects are notorious for this very reason - PPARS,
the credit union ISIS system, Garda PULSE system, and now a public services application,
Millions more wasted on key hi-tech projects

And yet, IT projects are arguably a lot less complex than biological systems.

The point is, if you try to look for a quick and easy answer in evaluating something which is inherently not quick and easy, you will just end up chasing your own tail.

I have read and read your post and find myself baffled as to what vitamin c, the garda pulse system, unspecified IT projects etc etc have to do with whether or not homoeopathy "works".

On the one hand you seem to be saying that you hope there will be proof in the future, and you further hope it may be in 15-20 years time.

However, in the absence of this proof which you say you hope to see, you seem to be quite happy that, in the meantime, claims are made for homoeopathic "remedies" for which you say we may not have proof for another 15 - 20 years.

Additionally, you seem to imply that, while clinical trials are all very well for the makers of non homoeopathic medicines, there is something about homoeopathy which means the claims made on its behalf can't be similarly tested.

It seems like an unusual world where manufacturers, who make billions from the sale of products for which they make quite specific claims on the one hand, then also say that their claims can't actually be properly tested on the other hand.

Until such times that I see double blind clinical trials subject to peer review I will not believer the claims made by those who represent the vested interests of the homoeopathic industry.

That others choose to believe in homoeopathy, or Una Powers predictions on 98FM, or Uri Gellar's claims that he bends spoons by special psychic powers which he has, is their right and their choice. But belief it is and it is no more credible than a belief in the tooth fairy.

Peanut

Please read it again, the point is that you underestimate the time and resources that are often required to establish the action of a substance, or a chain of cause and effect, in a complex system.

jawlie wrote:

Additionally, you seem to imply that, while clinical trials are all very well for the makers of non homoeopathic medicines, there is something about homoeopathy which means the claims made on its behalf can't be similarly tested.

I am not saying that whatsoever.

My point is that you seem to require a form of instant gratification in terms of research, that does not even apply to commonplace substances such as vitamins.

I'll say it again.
In 1970, nobel laureate Linus Pauling published "Vitamin C, the Common Cold & the Flu.".

38 years later we are still debating the question.

By your rationale, the lack of clarity in that time must be due to a massive cover up by the vitamin and supplement manufacturers.

Acupuncture, at least 2000 and possibly 5000 years old. Widespread consensus only last year that "emerging clinical evidence seems to imply that acupuncture is effective for some but not all conditions".(ref)

jawlie wrote:

Until such times that I see double blind clinical trials subject to peer review I will not believer the claims made by those who represent the vested interests of the homoeopathic industry.

Sorry jawlie, but it's pointless arguing with you if you continue to bizarrely claim that either :-

a) There are no positive clinical trial results,

or

b) That these must solely come from the manufacturers, in order to placate your odd conspiracy theory ideas.

pH

Peanut wrote: »

Why is there then still confusion as to whether or not it's benefical for colds and flu?

There isn't any confusion. Most studies have shown no benefit, and in those that have shown a benefit it's been in the form of a small single percentage decrease in symptom duration. So the answer is if it has any benefit then it's so small as to be not worth bothering about.

In fact, why is it that we still can't say for sure whether taking multivitamin supplements is actually benefical or detrimental to health?
...

It must be a big conspiracy!

We know that taking multivitamin supplements makes no major difference one way of the other.

We know the RDA for each vitamin, and we know that someone eating a reasonably balanced first-world diet will have no problem getting the RDA from their food.

You're right in saying that maybe if lots of money was spent on it we might find a 0.01% benefit in health or perhaps a small decrease, but for all practical purposes it doesn't matter - the effect of taking a daily vitamin pill on healthy people in the 1st world eating a reasonable balanced diet is so tiny it's almost impossible to measure.

Pick anything we eat at any dose, eating it or not eating it on a regular basis when you get into enough detail must have either a positive or negative effect on health. If these effects are so small as to be swamped by millions of other things then we don't waste millions of Euro trying to find out if at the 10th decimal place the effect is positive or negative - we just say "Whatever effect it's having, it's too small to worry about, let's move on".

So let's imagine that taking a multivitamin pill every day for you life on average increased your lifespan by one day.

The amount of money, time and effort you'd need to spend to find a positive result this small would be huge. Even then the chances are you might miss it in the statistics or experimental failings would cause it to be missed.

But let's say that you can devise a coarser experiment, that can cheaply and quickly determine that taking a multi-vit everyday does not increase or decrease your life expectancy by more than 1 week.

You conclude that whatever effect they're having is tiny (less than a week either way) and that any extra work on pinning down the actual effect would be a huge waste of money - the big picture is "No measurable effect".

I hope this answers your question.

Peanut

pH wrote: »

There isn't any confusion. Most studies have shown no benefit, and in those that have shown a benefit it's been in the form of a small single percentage decrease in symptom duration. So the answer is if it has any benefit then it's so small as to be not worth bothering about.

Really, you are saying that there has been no controversy?
Why are cold and flu remedies still advertised as containing Vitamin C?

The point is that there has been confusion for a significant amount of time.
I really don't see how you can credibly argue with that.

Please see here. ("Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold")

.."The role of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in the prevention and treatment of the common cold has been a subject of controversy for 60 years, but is widely sold and used as both a preventive and therapeutic agent.
...
It reduced the duration and severity of common cold symptoms slightly, although the magnitude of the effect was so small its clinical usefulness is doubtful. Nevertheless, in six trials with participants exposed to short periods of extreme physical or cold stress or both (including marathon runners and skiers) vitamin C reduced the common cold risk by half."

pH wrote: »

We know that taking multivitamin supplements makes no major difference one way of the other.

That's interesting, because according to this ("based on data on nearly 300,000 men"),

"..The risk of advanced prostate cancer is 32% higher in men who take multivitamins more than once a day than in those who do not take them at all. Risk of fatal prostate cancer was almost double."

Granted, this is above average multivitamin usage, but it's still not exactly a .01% difference.

pH wrote: »

Pick anything we eat at any dose, eating it or not eating it on a regular basis when you get into enough detail must have either a positive or negative effect on health. If these effects are so small as to be swamped by millions of other things then we don't waste millions of Euro trying to find out if at the 10th decimal place the effect is positive or negative - we just say "Whatever effect it's having, it's too small to worry about, let's move on".

The point is that the effects may not be so small as you believe they may be.

pH wrote: »

...
The amount of money, time and effort you'd need to spend to find a positive result this small would be huge. Even then the chances are you might miss it in the statistics or experimental failings would cause it to be missed.
...

You're predicating this on the assumption that the effect will be small, however, it's dangerous to assume this unless you actually test it.

pH wrote: »

I hope this answers your question.

Thanks, I hope I've answered yours too

pH

Peanut wrote: »

Really, you are saying that there has been no controversy?
Why are cold and flu remedies still advertised as containing Vitamin C?

Because it's legal and they sell?

The point is that there has been confusion for a significant amount of time.
I really don't see how you can credibly argue with that.

No confusion for anyone willing to get medical advice from places other than Richard and Judy and the alternative health section in the Sunday supplements.

Please see here. ("Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold")

.."The role of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in the prevention and treatment of the common cold has been a subject of controversy for 60 years, but is widely sold and used as both a preventive and therapeutic agent.
...
It reduced the duration and severity of common cold symptoms slightly, although the magnitude of the effect was so small its clinical usefulness is doubtful. Nevertheless, in six trials with participants exposed to short periods of extreme physical or cold stress or both (including marathon runners and skiers) vitamin C reduced the common cold risk by half."

From your link:

Authors' conclusions
The failure of vitamin C supplementation to reduce the incidence of colds in the normal population indicates that routine mega-dose prophylaxis is not rationally justified for community use. But evidence suggests that it could be justified in people exposed to brief periods of severe physical exercise or cold environments.

/yawn

That's interesting, because according to this ("based on data on nearly 300,000 men"),

"..The risk of advanced prostate cancer is 32% higher in men who take multivitamins more than once a day than in those who do not take them at all. Risk of fatal prostate cancer was almost double."

Not exactly a .01% difference.

Maths isn't yours or the BBC's strong point I guess.

First of all NO correlation at all was found in incidence of colon cancer - taking or not taking mutivits has no effect at all.

Multivit use was Correlated with the spread of the the cancer as it progressed to advanced and fatal stages.

The incidence rates per 100000 person-years for advanced and fatal prostate cancers for those who took a multivitamin more than seven times per week were 143.8 and 18.9, respectively, compared with 113.4 and 11.4 in never users.

So you're trying to make a general health point by citing an observational study that correlates heavy multivitamin use with more aggressive progression of colon cancer? It may well be that one of the vitamins involved assists the spread of the disease (though from my reading of the text I suspect the correlation may not imply causation) - a clinical trial may be called for here.

I know you're into homoeopathy and all that, and this concept of trials is all new to you, so maybe have a read here http://www.nih.gov/news/WordonHealth/aug2004/story03.htm for an insight as to what is going on here.

Suffice to say that despite desperate digging by you and finding an observational study on colon cancer progression, the point I made stands - any general health benefits for healthy people in the first world from taking a daily multivitamin are too small to be measured either way.

The point is that the effects may not be so small as you believe they may be.

You're predicating this on the assumption that the effect will be small, however, it's dangerous to assume this unless you actually test it.

I agree, if no one tested it it would be.

Effect of multivitamin and multimineral supplements on morbidity from infections in older people (MAVIS trial): pragmatic, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial

Results Supplementation did not significantly affect contacts with primary care and days of infection per person (incidence rate ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.19 and 1.07, 0.90 to 1.27). Quality of life was not affected by supplementation. No statistically significant findings were found for secondary outcomes or subgroups.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/331/7512/324

Thanks, I hope I've answered yours too

No you've done what all supporters of alternative quakery do, pull quotes from articles which you believe support your position, don't bother trying to understand them and ignore all the contrary evidence.

Bravo.

Peanut

pH wrote: »

From your link:

Authors' conclusions
The failure of vitamin C supplementation to reduce the incidence of colds in the normal population indicates that routine mega-dose prophylaxis is not rationally justified for community use. But evidence suggests that it could be justified in people exposed to brief periods of severe physical exercise or cold environments.

/yawn

I take it then that you believe that supports your assertion,

pH wrote: »

"So the answer is if it has any benefit then it's so small as to be not worth bothering about."

You might have also missed,

"One large trial reported equivocal benefit from an 8 g therapeutic dose at the onset of symptoms, and two trials using five-day supplementation reported benefit. More therapeutic trials are necessary to settle the question, especially in children who have not entered these trials."

But I guess we should just not bother, right?

pH wrote: »

Maths isn't yours or the BBC's strong point I guess.

Slightly ironic from someone who will generalise on a .01% difference across the board.

pH wrote: »

So you're trying to make a general health point by citing an observational study that correlates heavy multivitamin use with more aggressive progression of colon cancer? It may well be that one of the vitamins involved assists the spread of the disease (though from my reading of the text I suspect the correlation may not imply causation) - a clinical trial may be called for here.

I know you're into homoeopathy and all that, and this concept of trials is all new to you, so maybe have a read here http://www.nih.gov/news/WordonHealth/aug2004/story03.htm for an insight as to what is going on here.

Although your condescension is endearing, I am well aware of the difference between correlation, and causation for example.

Thanks for your concern, though.

If you were following the thread, you would realise the point I am making is
that by making sweeping generalisations, such as your -

"any general health benefits for healthy people in the first world from taking a daily multivitamin are too small to be measured either way."

..you imply that there will not be significant effects for various subsets of the general population. A clear example would be introduction of folic acid to prevent birth defects.

But apologies, this could only be relevant to merely ~50% of the cases.

pH wrote: »

I agree, if no one tested it it would be.
...
No you've done what all supporters of alternative quakery do, pull quotes from articles which you believe support your position, don't bother trying to understand them and ignore all the contrary evidence.

Funnily enough, you have done exactly the same.

pH

Peanut wrote: »

..you imply that there will not be significant effects for various subsets of the general population.

No I don't - a vitamin supplement is obviously useful if someone is consuming less than their RDA of a vitamin on a regular basis.

Didn't like the study real study on multivitamins did you? And there are plenty more. There are no measurable health benefits from taking vitamins in excess of the RDA - which part of that don't you understand?

A clear example would be introduction of folic acid to prevent birth defects.

Yea, found by real science - try diluting it to 100C and giving it to pregnant women and see what it does.

Loike cures Loike! - would you ever f*ck off - it's one of the silliest bit of rubbish ever touted, the fact that people can be as gullible as you never ceases to amaze me.

This thread and your inanity continue to bore me - let me know when you find out how water remembers these long gone active molecules. I'll do my best to make it to Stockholm when you pick up your Nobel.

Have a read here for an example of why homoeopaths are lowlife scumbags feeding on the misery of the sick and the dying. It's complete and utter nonsense, the fact that anyone with a brain tumour is being told about 20C or 100C Arnica makes be furious.
http://abchomeopathy.com/forum2.php/34059/

And people like you who give these charlatans cover by trying to have protracted 'scientific' debates make me sick. Go crawl back under your apologetics rock. Whether you know it or not you are providing cover for those who are cynically taking money from very ill people, in many cases diverting them from proper medical attention and in all cases lining their pockets by supplying worthless cures

robindch

Politeness please, folks -- this isn't a religious forum!

Peanut

pH,
You will be glad to hear that I have no interest in continuing this debate with you.

All the best.

pH

robindch wrote: »

Politeness please, folks -- this isn't a religious forum!

Sorry robin - slightly too much to drink

But sober I'll state my point once more, apologists like Peanut want to make it about studies and water memory and keeping sensible people on the back foot, confused and thinking "oh maybe there's something in it?"

The fact is, this is primarily about tricking sick people into buying plain water under the deception that it will help them.

It's like the ultimate scam ..

"Right we need to make a quick buck, who is a very easy and desperate market ... oh sick ill people especially those with chronic conditions"

"Hmmm what can we trick them into buying, herbs? crystals?"

"Nah, they all have some cost associated with them, they need some gathering and preparation how about water, it costs almost nothing and is abundantly available"

"You really think people will buy plain water as a cure? Let's find out"

It's evil beyond words to take money from desperate, ill, suffering people for water and telling them it can cure them.

jawlie

pH wrote: »

Sorry robin - slightly too much to drink

But sober I'll state my point once more, apologists like Peanut want to make it about studies and water memory and keeping sensible people on the back foot, confused and thinking "oh maybe there's something in it?"

The fact is, this is primarily about tricking sick people into buying plain water under the deception that it will help them.

It's like the ultimate scam ..

"Right we need to make a quick buck, who is a very easy and desperate market ... oh sick ill people especially those with chronic conditions"

"Hmmm what can we trick them into buying, herbs? crystals?"

"Nah, they all have some cost associated with them, they need some gathering and preparation how about water, it costs almost nothing and is abundantly available"

"You really think people will buy plain water as a cure? Let's find out"

It's evil beyond words to take money from desperate, ill, suffering people for water and telling them it can cure them.

It is, of course, impossible to hold a rational discussion with people who think their strongly held beliefs are enough to overcome lack of evidence or proof.


What Peanut is saying is that, for him, he has more than enough "evidence" for him to believe in the power of homoeopathy. And that’s what it is - it is a belief like belief in the power of the Tarot Cards or that Uri Gellar really can bend spoons with his mind. I’ve seen people I know who have professed an ardent and seemingly strong and unshakeable belief in homoeopathy find their beliefs evaporate when they contract a serious illness. Homoeopathy, is seems, is a great healthcare system for the well, but the unwell mysteriously abandon it in favour of more tried and tested medicine.

Peanut,ironically, accuses others of the very vice from which he himself suffers;

Peanut wrote: »

You effectively ignore any research that doesn't agree with the skeptic hypothesis.

Peanut wrote: »

"One large trial reported equivocal benefit from an 8 g therapeutic dose at the onset of symptoms, and two trials using five-day supplementation reported benefit.

Conveniently for his argument, he doesn’t quote how many countless studies show no benefit at all.

And that’s often the problem with the arguments put forward by the zealots in favour of homoeopathy. They select the “studies” which favour their case, and completely ignore those (many more) studies which do not, thus showing their bias.

Peanut wrote: »

Why are cold and flu remedies still advertised as containing Vitamin C?

Why this is relevant to a discussion about homoeopathy seems unclear, but is an example of the smoke screen to try to divert attention away from homoeopathy.

A more relevant question might be “why do the homoeopathic companies on the one hand sell and promote cold remedies we can all buy in the shops, while on the other hand homoeopathic doctors tell us that while we may have the same symptoms, a different remedy will be necessary for each of us, individually, due to our different temperament type”?

Which is right? They can’t both be right?

But Peanut doesn’t ask that question as it’s a contradiction highlighting that the homoeopathy industry contradicts itself.

Peanut wrote: »

Sorry jawlie, but it's pointless arguing with you if you continue to bizarrely claim that either :-

a) There are no positive clinical trial results,

or

b) That these must solely come from the manufacturers, in order to placate your odd conspiracy theory ideas.

I guess we should not be surprised that Peanut claims I said something I have never said, and then uses this as a basis for discontinuing an argument. Apart from the fact it seems haughty and passive aggressive, it's merely one more smoke screen which he introduces to avoid the hard facts. Or, rather, the lack of hard facts.

Off the top of my head in this thread, I can recall numerous attempts at smoke screens Peanut has introduced to try to confuse the issue and avoid discussing homoeopathy. I can recall Vitamen c ( a favourite of Peanut and he introduces it numerous times), gravity, multivitamin supplements, the credit union ISIS system, acupuncture, the properties of water, “the effectiveness of some new anti-cancer drug” and, bizarrely, Garda PULSE system, as some examples.

Peanut wrote: »

I'll ignore the fact that you still seem to have somehow missed the methodologically sound trials which showed positive results for homeopathy.

Who says these trials are “methodologically sound”? Have they been subjected to peer review and the trials replicated with the same or similar results?

Peanut wrote: »

Many people seem to have a naivety about the scope of clinical trials.

Who are these “many people”? And why are they relevant to this discussion except, perhaps, as a red herring?

Peanut wrote: »

The difference is that, while I agree that there is not sufficient evidence to strongly claim that it works, I believe that there is at least some evidence, ….

My personal opinion is that it does work, in certain situations.

What does “it does work” mean? Would the people involved have got better due to the natural healing powers of the body in any case? We simply don’t know.

Believe it if you want to, but don’t fool yourself that it is no more than that, a belief. The less credulous of us will remain sceptical until such time as proper proof comes forward. Although, with 250 years to come up with proof and having come up with virtually none to date, we won't hold our breath waiting for the homoeopathic industry to produce it.

pH

jawlie wrote: »

Homoeopathy, is seems, is a great healthcare system for the well, but the unwell mysteriously abandon it in favour of more tried and tested medicine.

If that was always true then perhaps I'd be more tolerant.

They'll sell you one of these - for First Aid - ie emergency medical care.


This is what happens when you try to treat a child who has a serious medical problem with homoeopathy.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/19/1195321684868.html

They'll sell you water to vaccinate you against malaria and yellow fever
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/71/

Not many takers for homoeopathic HIV/AIDS treatment here? Why not sell water to the poorest people in Africa to 'treat' AIDS?
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/for-homeopaths/documents/Aidsflyer.pdf

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Homoeopathy is about selling water to people as a cure. Yes most take it for non serious conditions where it acts as a cheap and side-effect free placebo, but because it's dressed up in science, because people like Peanut defend it homoeopaths do represent a serious health risk mainly to the most vulnerable people.

Myksyk

pH wrote: »

This is what happens when you try to treat a child who has a serious medical problem with homoeopathy.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/19/1195321684868.html

Interesting but frustratingly depressing to see that the supposed solution is to register people who practice homoeopathy... what the heck would this do? If this guy was a 'registered homoeopath' in what way would the outcome have been different?

jawlie

Myksyk wrote: »

Interesting but frustratingly depressing to see that the supposed solution is to register people who practice homoeopathy... what the heck would this do? If this guy was a 'registered homoeopath' in what way would the outcome have been different?

I can't agree that registering homoeopaths is any solution to anything. The only real solution is to challenge their bogus science and expose their contradictions and anecdotal "evidence" and try to convince those who want to believe in it all to try to think about it and ask the questions guys like Peanut try to avoid asking.

robindch

jawlie wrote: »

I can't agree that registering homoeopaths is any solution to anything.

Registration certainly isn't the solution. What would work better is legislation to prevent homeopaths, chiropracters and the rest of them from claiming to provide therapy or treatment for anything, and requiring them (a) to inform their clients that there is no evidence that what they do has any effect and (b) to inform the patient's GP of the symptoms.

Exposing rubbish is all very well, but there are far too many people who keep their minds so open to alternative realities that their brain dries out in the passing breeze and a little bit of legal protection is in order.

jawlie

robindch wrote: »

Registration certainly isn't the solution. What would work better is legislation to prevent homeopaths, chiropracters and the rest of them from claiming to provide therapy or treatment for anything, and requiring them (a) to inform their clients that there is no evidence that what they do has any effect and (b) to inform the patient's GP of the symptoms.

Exposing rubbish is all very well, but there are far too many people who keep their minds so open to alternative realities that their brain dries out in the passing breeze and a little bit of legal protection is in order.

I am just not sure what should be done. On the one hand I tend towards the view that one can't legislate for this sort of thing, and if adults want to take their advice from a witch doctor, or from someone who reads tea leaves, or from Orca the Whale, we should respect their right to do so.

While I agree that offering adults homoeopathy against malaria, yellow fever and HIV/AIDS is obscene, I think to deny an adult the right to seek out and accept or offer this is equally wrong.

For instance, to imply that the inhabitants of Maun are offered homoeopathy as either a cure or a preventative against AIDS sounds disgusting.

Until one thinks about it and realises its not a case they are being offered homoeopathy against their will, or that if they accept homoeopathy they are denied other available treatment or prevention. Botswana's population has been halved by the scourge of AIDS and the Government, in recent years, has been running high profile campaigns against prevention which are as available to those being offered homoeopathy as to those not being offered homoeopathy.

Quite why the promotors of this homoeopathic experiment have chosed Maun is unclear, and perhaps they have chosen it because its out of the way? Or to coincide with the governments promotion of condom use and safer sex techniques so that the homoeopathic "trial" will show less people contracting HIV/AIDS than in a no doubt carefully chosed previous period, so people like Peanut can show us the figures to triumph that homoeopathy "works", when what we are seeing might just as well be the result of the government safer sex programme.

We have to be vigilant against bogus science, and I repeat the only intelligent position is to be sceptical of those who confuse belief with proper proof.

pH

jawlie wrote:

While I agree that offering adults homoeopathy against malaria, yellow fever and HIV/AIDS is obscene, I think to deny an adult the right to seek out and accept or offer this is equally wrong.

I'm the most libertarian person I know, and I'm completely against censorship. However when people talk about censorship you always here the phrase "Your freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre".

So what's the difference between shouting fire in a theatre and telling people that water can prevent/cure AIDS? I guess you could argue that shouting fire in a theatre is a malicious act (if you know there's no fire) while you could argue to some extent that homoeopaths are not being harmful on purpose.

But still, I think you can make a point that if freedom of speech doesn't trump shouting fire in a cinema then why should you be free to offer bogus cures for AIDS? The potential harm (in terms of death and suffering) from people treating HIV/AIDS with water makes any number of deaths in a theatre inconsequential.

So while I agree that anyone should be free to treat themselves with water if they so wish, should people be free to promote it as a cure and misinform them that homoeopathy works?

jawlie

pH wrote: »

I'm the most libertarian person I know, and I'm completely against censorship. However when people talk about censorship you always here the phrase "Your freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre".

I don't think we are disagreeing. I would not feel comfortable banning homoeopathy or witch doctors or tea leaf readers. as I feel that's not the sort of society in which I would want to live.

Sure I feel uncomfortable that some people believe in the power of homoeopathy or witch doctors or tea leaf readers, but its not really possible to legislate for stupidity.

I am occasionally enraged that others exploit, whether cynically or otherwise, others because they pretend they can bend spoons with the power of their mind, or that they can cure cancer etc etc with homoeopathy. It is disgraceful and disgusting, and I hope I never tire of exposing such charlatanism. But ban it?

pH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o

Detailed scientific explanation of Homoeopathy by Dr Charlene Werner (the original clip linked on Bad Science was removed, and this is too good to miss).

robindch

Rofl :D

jawlie

lol - she made me laugh. The infantile so called logical steps she made are really very funny.

I also likes james Randi's explaining the rules of homoeopathy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

"[ youtube ]video-code[ /youtube ]" jawlie

but remove the spaces between the [ ]

King Mob

Jesus Christ! How many sciences did she just get wrong there? I'm counting 5, 6 if you count demolitions.
What exactly is she a doctor of?

jawlie

I see the James Randi homoeopathic video doesn't work, and as I can't seem to edit my previous post I put a link here to the new location of the video.

This simply made me laugh!