The bleeding edge...

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

of homeopathic thought brought to you by NHCoraHSarah at OtherHealth;

" I thought you might be interested in this article. It is from the Homeopathy Journal, which is the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy.

Weatherley-Jones E, Thompson E A, & Thomas K J (2004) The Placebo-controlled trial as a test of complementary and alternative medicine: observations from research experience of individualised homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy 93(4), 186-189.

Abstract

The authors' experience of conducting clinical trials in homeopathy and analysing data from these has drawn attention to a fundamental problem with the interpretation of results from placebo controlled trials in homeopathy: It is not reasonable to assume that the specific effects of homeopathic medicine and the non-specific effects of consultations are independent of each other - specific effects of the medicine (as manifested by patients' reactions) may influence the nature of subsequent consultations and non-specific efffects of the consultation may enhance or diminish the effects of the medicine.
For clinical trials of homeoathy to be accurate representations of practice, we need modified designs that take into account the complexity of the homeopathic intervention. Only with such trials will results be generalisable to homeopathic practice in the real world. The authors propose that comparative trials are a meaningful way of evaluating the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment."

http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=3516&page=7&pp=10

Absolutely amazing, it's 2004 and the homeopaths have just discovered how a controlled trial works.

Turns out that NHCoraHSarah, just like Bach, can smugly assure us that they understand the scientific method so well that they can spot its flaws then present something like this as if it repaired the defects in the method.

Just how dim are they?

[CueForSelfRighteousProtestationsThatSheHadGivenProperAnswersJustLikeBarb....at all]
Shame we whipped her so badly that she daren't show her face again.
[/CueForSelfRighteousProtestationsThatSheHadGivenProperAnswersJustLikeBarb....at all]

 

[Dr. Imago]

Well, here is one other published study by this lead author which concludes...

There is weak but equivocal evidence that the effects of homeopathic medicine are superior to placebo [in treating chronic fatigue syndrome]. Results also suggest that there may be nonspecific benefits from the homeopathic consultation. Further studies are needed to determine whether these differences hold in larger samples.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15016577

Ah... I see! So, the evidence is not only "weak" but it is also "equivocal". Real convincing, huh?

What the homeopathy proponents continuously fail to account for in their trials - which almost perfectly accounts for their continued positive (albeit weak and equivocal) observations - is the "Hawthorne effect" that permeates their assessments.

When homeopathic studies are adequately controlled to eliminate this bias..., SURPISE SUPRISE! The positive effects disappear!

This is not rocket science, folks.

-TT

 

[BillHoyt]

When homeopathic studies are adequately controlled to eliminate this bias..., SURPISE SUPRISE! The positive effects disappear!

This is not rocket science, folks.

-TT

Right, but we seem to have some folks back in the stone age. To them, this is rock science, and they've yet to get through Pebbles 101.

 

[Dr. Imago]

"It is not reasonable to assume that the specific effects of homeopathic medicine and the non-specific effects of consultations are independent of each other - specific effects of the medicine (as manifested by patients' reactions) may influence the nature of subsequent consultations and non-specific efffects of the consultation may enhance or diminish the effects of the medicine."

A) "...not reasonable..." Says who? You? Cause and effect confusion here. Let's run your experiments, instead of with homeopathic "medicines", instead with a large foam mallet. We'll whack the patient on the head ten times with said mallet (just enough to get their attention, but not really hurt them) and then we'll measure the effects. You have to tell the patients that this is a "special" mallet made of a unique blend of special material that is tuned to the vibrations of specific ailments. My bet, if you whack the patient ten times and tell them they'll get better, most will feel better next time you see them. For the ones who don't, you have to increase the number of whacks (or decrease them) and maybe hit a different part of the body. Keep finagling around with this foam hammer until the patient either (1) tells you they feel better so you stop hitting them with this stupid hammer, or (2) gets better on their own.

B) "... non-specific effects of the consultation may enhance or diminish the effects of the medicine." Huh? I think you've just expertly defined the Hawthorne effect. Congratulations.

-TT

 

[Sarah-I]

My God Third Twin. For someone who is about to graduate med school in 7 months time you ain't half dumb. Quite scary really!!!

Why not read the whole article in the journal? What you posted was not me but was part of the Abstract to the article, which was referenced. By the way, there are lots more double blind placebo controlled trials within this journal. It is the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy afterall, which provides homeopathic education for doctors. They show positive results for homeopathy too.

A friend of mine, who is a homeopath just go back from India the other day. She has been studying with homeopaths out there and saw a lovely case in clinic. They see a lot of pathology in India and are very good at prescribing for pathological conditions of such a nature. A guy who they saw in clinic was an insulin dependant diabetic. He was prescribed homeopathic remedies, one remedy at a time though and was cured of his diabetes. On testing, blood sugars totally normal and no further requirement for insulin. This is someone who had been a diabetic with a need for insulin since his teenage years.

Hey guys, I think your little friend Hansel could do with your help at the moment. He is feeling very alone and out of his depth at present and is being attacked and totally whitewashed!!!

 

[Rolfe]

there are lots more double blind placebo controlled trials within this journal. .... They show positive results for homeopathy too.

Do you just type anything that enters your head? Does the concept of truth, and relationship to actual reality, mean nothing to you? I've read much of the journal too, and while there are lots of case reports and unblinded studies and "patient satisfaction studies" and flights of fantasy regarding whether homoeopathy is magic or quantum mechanics, double blind placebo controlled trials are conspicuous by their absence.

A friend of mine, who is a homeopath just go back from India the other day. She has been studying with homeopaths out there and saw a lovely case in clinic. They see a lot of pathology in India and are very good at prescribing for pathological conditions of such a nature. A guy who they saw in clinic was an insulin dependant diabetic. He was prescribed homeopathic remedies, one remedy at a time though and was cured of his diabetes. On testing, blood sugars totally normal and no further requirement for insulin. This is someone who had been a diabetic with a need for insulin since his teenage years.

OK, that answers the question, you do just type anything you like with no regard for truth. Sarah, how gullible do you think we are?

Rolfe.

 

[Prester John]

A guy who they saw in clinic was an insulin dependant diabetic. He was prescribed homeopathic remedies, one remedy at a time though and was cured of his diabetes. On testing, blood sugars totally normal and no further requirement for insulin. This is someone who had been a diabetic with a need for insulin since his teenage years.

A single properly documented case is all you need, but you just can't do it - anecdotes thats all.

Ask yourself why are all the really good so called cures impossible to verify?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

[CueForSelfRighteousProtestationsThatSheHadGivenProperAnswersJustLikeBarb....at all]
Shame we whipped her so badly that she daren't show her face again.
[/CueForSelfRighteousProtestationsThatSheHadGivenProperAnswersJustLikeBarb....at all]

and right on cue, up she pops as if she'd never been away to present more unsubstantiatable claims in a new thread and avoid the thread where she got stuck.

" By the way, there are lots more double blind placebo controlled trials within this journal. It is the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy afterall, which provides homeopathic education for doctors"

Reality check: can we just remind you that if you could get positive results in one cast-iron controlled trial it would not be published in your ghetto journal. If it's published there then that pretty much means it is unpublishable elsewhere.

" A guy who they saw in clinic was an insulin dependant diabetic. He was prescribed homeopathic remedies, one remedy at a time though and was cured of his diabetes. On testing, blood sugars totally normal and no further requirement for insulin. This is someone who had been a diabetic with a need for insulin since his teenage years."

And when we see the case published with the original diagnosis confirmed you'll be part way there. Uncorroborated anecdotes from the Indian medical system don't carry much weight. When was this case seen?

You also need to tell your friends:

http://homeopathyforums.hpathy.com//forum_posts.asp?TID=1547&KW=diabetic

"If you are talking about an Insulin dependent diabetic cure is really not possible. With a non insulin diabetic patient it is. With the former the best you can do is to keep him stabilised and possibly reduce the dose of insulin."

says Ricky.

"If there is organ distruction, which is the case with type 1 diabetes, it is beyond a disorder of the vital force.Â_ Not every person is curable.Â_Â_The rightÂ_remedy can keep a type 1 diabetic from suffering from many of the complications, though."

says Shirl the Whirl

"Homeopathy is not a magic wand! We treat on the basis of similarity and repertorization but that does not mean we can cure everything. When a homeopath takes a case, the curability has to be taken into account. If you have been taught otherwise, please go back to the books. Even Hahnemann has written about the curability of a case.



If there are no insulin producing cells left in the pancreas, a homeopathy remedy can not create cells artificially. That's a pathetic assumption which reflects that either you do not have good knowledge of pathology or homeopathy. Same goes for other advanced pathologies. I am not saying that every advanced pathology is incurable. All I want to say is strict individualization is required to assess the curability of a case. Homeopathic medicines just stimulate the body to correct the disease process which is reversible. If the changes are irreversible, homeopathy can atbest work palliatively."

says Dr B

 

[BillHoyt]

My God Third Twin. For someone who is about to graduate med school in 7 months time you ain't half dumb. Quite scary really!!!

Why not read the whole article in the journal? What you posted was not me but was part of the Abstract to the article, which was referenced. By the way, there are lots more double blind placebo controlled trials within this journal. It is the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy afterall, which provides homeopathic education for doctors. They show positive results for homeopathy too.

A friend of mine, who is a homeopath just go back from India the other day. She has been studying with homeopaths out there and saw a lovely case in clinic. They see a lot of pathology in India and are very good at prescribing for pathological conditions of such a nature. A guy who they saw in clinic was an insulin dependant diabetic. He was prescribed homeopathic remedies, one remedy at a time though and was cured of his diabetes. On testing, blood sugars totally normal and no further requirement for insulin. This is someone who had been a diabetic with a need for insulin since his teenage years.

Hey guys, I think your little friend Hansel could do with your help at the moment. He is feeling very alone and out of his depth at present and is being attacked and totally whitewashed!!!

You seem to be reading a totally different thread than I am. Perhaps even a totally different site? It is clear you are reading totally different papers than you cite to us and totally different journals than we read. This is amazing. What is the name of the parallel universe in which you exist and, please do let us know when you return, able to actually address issues the JREF skeptics are raising. One of mine, for instance, that you've ignored, concerned your claims about homeopathic remedies for poisoning. Let us know when the mother ship next brings you back to our universe.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: The bleeding edge...

and right on cue, up she pops as if she'd never been away to present more unsubstantiatable claims in a new thread and avoid the thread where she got stuck.

No, BSM, we're being defeated. Didn't you read her missive from the alt. reality?

 

[Benguin]

Absolutely amazing, it's 2004 and the homeopaths have just discovered how a controlled trial works.

May be it is a sort of evolutionary process, some of them do want to explore and investigate and not just sling mud, we know that ... over time they grow rational thought process, see the need for controlled trials etc.

Eventually, a little research and possibly experimentation, and these individuals will realise how delusionary homeopathy is and move on.

I can't explain why, but I suspect such people would not feel the motive to turn around to their former friends and say "yah boo sucks" the way medicos going woo do.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Do you just type anything that enters your head? Does the concept of truth, and relationship to actual reality, mean nothing to you? I've read much of the journal too, and while there are lots of case reports and unblinded studies and "patient satisfaction studies" and flights of fantasy regarding whether homoeopathy is magic or quantum mechanics, double blind placebo controlled trials are conspicuous by their absence.

It really is quite amazing. She presents herself as a defender of homeopathy and just caughts out time and again in silly lies. It's been a while sine I last looked at a homeopathy journal, but your description fits with exactly what I found. Lots of lovely meaningless essays plus case reports.

Quacks, knowing or unknowing? She, for one, is a bloody liar and just hopes we don't spot it when she makes things up.

 

[Sarah-I]

Some Famous Homeopaths the World Over

Rajan Sankaran, Robin Murphy, Farokh Master, Rajesh Shah, Bob Leckeridge, David Reilly, Roger Morrison, Dana Ullman, Bill Gray, Amy Rothenberg, Paul Herscu, Todd Hoover, Nancy Herrick, Massimo Mangialavori, Colin Griffiths, Melisa Assilem, Roger Dyson, David Mundy, Sheilagh Creasy, Madelaine Evans, Margaret Roy, George Vithoulkas, Jonathon Shore, Jeremy Sherr, Jill Thompson, Divya Chabra (Sankaran's wife), Peter Fisher, Miranda Castro.

There are many more names to be added to this list the world over. So please tell me why, with so many people practicing homeopathy the world over, what makes you think that they have got it so wrong?

Most of these homeopaths have been practicing for 20 years or more, with Sheilagh Creasy probably having practiced for about 40 years in total. How on earth can so many people have got this so wrong? They are all still practicing homeopaths too.

 

[Benguin]

Some Famous Homeopaths the World Over

Rajan Sankaran, Robin Murphy, Farokh Master, Rajesh Shah, Bob Leckeridge, David Reilly, Roger Morrison, Dana Ullman, Bill Gray, Amy Rothenberg, Paul Herscu, Todd Hoover, Nancy Herrick, Massimo Mangialavori, Colin Griffiths, Melisa Assilem, Roger Dyson, David Mundy, Sheilagh Creasy, Madelaine Evans, Margaret Roy, George Vithoulkas, Jonathon Shore, Jeremy Sherr, Jill Thompson, Divya Chabra (Sankaran's wife), Peter Fisher, Miranda Castro.

There are many more names to be added to this list the world over. So please telly me why, with so many people practicing homeopathy the world over, what makes you think that they have got it so wrong?

Most of these homeopaths have been practicing for 20 years or more, with Sheilagh Creasy probably having practiced for about 40 years in total. How on earth can so many people have got this so wrong? They are all still practicing homeopaths too.

Back to slaughtering sacrifices to keep the sun coming up, I see. This has been explained to you many times.

Do you see anyone here attempting to justify 'allopathic' treatment based on the number and seniority of doctors practising it?

Medicine has only the one argument to support it or refute it. Efficacy.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Some Famous Homeopaths the World Over

Rajan Sankaran, Robin Murphy, Farokh Master, Rajesh Shah, Bob Leckeridge, David Reilly, Roger Morrison, Dana Ullman, Bill Gray, Amy Rothenberg, Paul Herscu, Todd Hoover, Nancy Herrick, Massimo Mangialavori, Colin Griffiths, Melisa Assilem, Roger Dyson, David Mundy, Sheilagh Creasy, Madelaine Evans, Margaret Roy, George Vithoulkas, Jonathon Shore, Jeremy Sherr, Jill Thompson, Divya Chabra (Sankaran's wife), Peter Fisher, Miranda Castro.

There are many more names to be added to this list the world over. So please tell me why, with so many people practicing homeopathy the world over, what makes you think that they have got it so wrong?

Most of these homeopaths have been practicing for 20 years or more, with Sheilagh Creasy probably having practiced for about 40 years in total. How on earth can so many people have got this so wrong? They are all still practicing homeopaths too.

Again, textbook "appeal to authority" fallacy.

Serious question: do you really understand, Sarah, why arguing from such a position is wrong, or do you not care about such issues? Which is it? I'm very interested in your answer.

-TT

 

[Benguin]

Again, textbook "appeal to authority" fallacy.

Serious question: do you really understand, Sarah, why arguing from such a position is wrong, or do you not care about such issues? Which is it? I'm very interested in your answer.

-TT

I wondered that, but as they are only authorities in their own questionable field, and have no recognised authority that is being misapplied I'm not so sure.

More of an ad populum, unless you can identify 'subject S'

 

[geni]

Some Famous Homeopaths the World Over

Rajan Sankaran, Robin Murphy, Farokh Master, Rajesh Shah, Bob Leckeridge, David Reilly, Roger Morrison, Dana Ullman, Bill Gray, Amy Rothenberg, Paul Herscu, Todd Hoover, Nancy Herrick, Massimo Mangialavori, Colin Griffiths, Melisa Assilem, Roger Dyson, David Mundy, Sheilagh Creasy, Madelaine Evans, Margaret Roy, George Vithoulkas, Jonathon Shore, Jeremy Sherr, Jill Thompson, Divya Chabra (Sankaran's wife), Peter Fisher, Miranda Castro.

There are many more names to be added to this list the world over. So please tell me why, with so many people practicing homeopathy the world over, what makes you think that they have got it so wrong?

Most of these homeopaths have been practicing for 20 years or more, with Sheilagh Creasy probably having practiced for about 40 years in total. How on earth can so many people have got this so wrong? They are all still practicing homeopaths too.

Famious? I've heard of 4 of them. Incerdently it should be Madeleine Evans not Madelaine Evans. (Even under their correct name they got two hits on google. I get more than that)

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Sarah-I,

Clutching at straws now, eh? I can make an even longer list of people who will testify that in their life-long experience they have ever only observed the earth as being flat and that God exists. Which just proves that the Earth is flat and God exists. Can't you even see how pathetic your last post is?

Instead of spamming this thread with the names of ['deluded' redundant] homeopaths, why don't you just answer the questions posed to you, for instance re. homeopathic treatment of acute poisoning?

Since you are obviously well acquainted with lots of experienced homeopaths they should be able to help answering all our questions.

 

[Dr. Imago]

I wondered that, but as they are only authorities in their own questionable field, and have no recognised authority that is being misapplied I'm not so sure.

Well, from the original link (my bolding for emphasis)...

The area of expertise is [not] a legitimate area or discipline.

Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as areas of knowledge or study. Obviously, claims made in such areas will not be very reliable.

What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult to determine. However, there are cases which are fairly clear cut. For example, if a person claimed to be an expert at something he called "chromabullet therapy" and asserted that firing painted rifle bullets at a person would cure cancer it would not be very reasonable to accept his claim based on his "expertise." After all, his expertise is in an area which is devoid of legitimate content. The general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a person must have mastery over a real field or area of knowledge.

As noted above, determining the legitimacy of a field can often be difficult. In European history, various scientists had to struggle with the Church and established traditions to establish the validity of their discliplines. For example, experts on evolution faced an uphill battle in getting the legitimacy of their area accepted.

A modern example involves psychic phenomenon. Some people claim that they are certified "master psychics" and that they are actually experts in the field. Other people contend that their claims of being certified "master psychics" are simply absurd since there is no real content to such an area of expertise. If these people are right, then anyone who accepts the claims of these "master psychics" as true are victims of a fallacious appeal to authority.

I would argue that "homeopathy" is not a legitimate area or discipline of study, therefore a self-proclaimed or so-called "expert" in that area becomes a meaningless concept. Why it is not a legimate area or discipline is because they cannot even define what it is, it is not reproducible, and they fail to even vaguely describe how it works in the face of numerous other far more plausible explanations of the perceived effects.

You can't have an expert in a field that is tantamount to pure bunkum.

-TT

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Some Famous Homeopaths the World Over

...

It's quite bizarre that you still do this.

Your next task. Explain, with examples, what Third Twin and Benguin are talking about.

Just to help you get started.