Show THAT Homeopathy works

Tim, if by prejudiced you mean that I currently believe that homeopathy does not work, you are absolute correct. If from that you are trying to imply that I know little about it, then you would be wrong. Neither of those are important. I know a good deal about homeopathy, and I have "judged" it. However, I am entirely willing to examine further evidence. If the evidence is good, I will gladly switch positions and be a proponent of homeopathy.

Homeopathy makes testable claims. It does not matter what I do or don't know about how or where those claims come from. I can see the prediction and compare the prediction to a measurable reality. If the prediction and reality (experimental result) match, we have a theory that might be useful. Otherwise, we do not. Not too complicated.

The point of a double blind trial (in particular) is that if it is properly designed and executed, it eliminates the ability of the participants to cheat. Cheat is the word. Lets say it a few more times. cheat, cheat, cheat, cheat.

That is what this about, are homeopaths cheating or not when they claim successes. Many homeopaths have been convinced in the past of the validity and importance of double blind testing. They then do the test, the test fails to show any results, and almost uniformly they blame the test.?!?!? That just doesn't cut it. Many/most homeopaths today aren't interested in double blind studies. They won't submit their work to them. When a double blind study is designed to catch cheaters, and people who make huge claims aren't interested in completing a little study.... well, it is way more than a bit fishy.

So, "cheating or not", that is the question. You believe not. I see that Hans is walking you a double blind test. Please do, carry on with that.

Now, what are you gonna do when/if (I say when) you get the results back and you can't tell who got what by looking at the returned forms? Think about this one hard. You will be performing a real, valid, scientific test of a homeopathic claim.

What are ya gonna do?
1) Blame the test as somehow flawed and/or inadequate?
2) Conclude that homeopathy does not work the way you have been led to believe?

Path number 1 has been incredibly popular with homeopaths, historically. In fact, it has led directly to that fishy trait of many homeopaths rejecting double blind studies for one made up reason of inadequacy or another.

If you say you will take path 2 if the results are null, I will happily sit here and watch the action until it is complete.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A hypothetical for you then:

1) You are a homeopathic care provider.
2) During a day, 10 different people come in with Pink Eye for example.
3) Other than the eye infections, each potential patient reports to be healthy. Pink eye is their only complaint.


Are you telling me that you would suggest a different course of treatment for each of them?

Do tell, please.

If each patient has the same problem (that can happen you know), it would seem that the "individualized" treatment for each patient would be largely, if not exactly, the same.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To elaborate further on the outlined test (I was in a bit of a hurry with the first post), there are a few challenges.

1) You need to recruit volunteers for the test. You will need about 50 people, preferably complete strangers. They will want a bit of compensation. Students are good; young healthy people who can read an instruction and fill out a questionaire. I don't know what is usually offered, but something to the tune of 25-50$ per person.

2) A report form must be designed. It must be as neutral as possible. This means that it should not be possible to guess from the questions which effect is expected. For example, if the drug is expected to make subjects feel warm, the question should be:

Do you feel:
A) Cold
B) Warm
C) As usual

There should be a number of questions that are irrelevant to the expected outcome.

All questions should be multi-choice, as the one above (because that form lends itself to statisitical investigation).

3) A mediator must be found. The mediator must be trusted by both parties. A reasonably well-known scientist or institution with a reputation to protect.

4) This is perhaps the most difficult part: It must be possible to verifiy the homeopathic drug. If the experiment is a success, the last thing you would want is to be suspected of cheating by supplying a non-homepathic drug that was sure to produce an effect. So an independent lab must analyze the drug and attest to the fact that the supposed active ingredient (and any other ingredient) is not present in quantities that should produce an effect according to conventional science. This may also cost a bit.

All in all, you must expect that the experiment will cost a few thousand dollars, but if successful, you investment will pay off very well. Not to mention the fame etc.

Hans

 

Not possible, pal.

If we do not find differential, uncommon symptoms upon which to base a prescription, then there is none given.

Likewise, you set up a typical scenerio of allopathic treatment whereby people are NOT seen in a historical context of ongoing treatment, just according to what's bothering them at the moment.

Well, it doesn't work like that, pal.

 

Which differential, uncommon symptoms did you find for George Washington?

Hans

 

Let me get this straight then.

If one person came in with pink eye, you could treat them. But if 9 more came in, they would be out of luck?

Are you saying that someone coming in with their eye all red and crusty with a historical context of usually being pretty healthy just isn't possible?

I say you have clearly flunked Reality 101.

 

Hahnemannian:

Individual prescription is still testable, although the result gets less clear-cut.

1) Examine a number of patients.
2) For ethical reasons exclude those with serious diseases, they go directly to treatment of their choice with no risk of placebo.
3) For the rest, half are treated with the prescribed drug, the rest has it substituted with placebo (of course without either patients or tester knowing which get what).
4) Evaluate all outcomes.

If homeopathy works, the group that gets prescribed drugs will show better improvement than the placebo group.


Hans

 

Ah, here we go again with the name-calling and insults. Typical response from health frauds and their advocates when challenged. After all, what else can a quack come back with when all facts are against you?

Oh, so all the homeopaths that have participated in these studies are not real homeopaths but frauds? How can there be frauds of frauds?

Yes, more insults, very becoming of you. FYI science has been my profession for more than 20 years, in both basic and applied research. And unlike your ridiculous claim, I have a real degree in biochemistry, among others. So I am flattered to have you believe I am only 17, I must've received all my education in the womb!

As I told your deranged colleague Hahnemanniac, several students and I tried a number of different homeopathic "remedies" at medium and high potency for a grad school tox course project. We observed no symptoms, no effects, none. Zip. If you claim to get a "reaction" from Bryonia 6C, there are only two possible causes: 1) psychosomatic reaction (most likely) or 2) the product you tried was adulterated with a real drug (also possible).

Are you sure you and Hahnemanniac aren't really the same person? The style is remarkably similar...

 

More excuses to shoot down a test protocol that will prove homeopathy doesn't work and is utterly worthless. No wonder you're afraid to test, you know it's a fraud.

And BTW, here is homeopathy 101:

Lesson 1 - the truth - Homeopathy is a fraud

Lesson 2 - the lie - Homeopathy cures all disease, 100% of the time

Lesson 3 - forget lesson 1, keep repeating lesson 2 until blue in the face

 

I would like to add that any trial of Homeopathy should also have a standard medical group as well, and that the "allopathic" disease chosen in the trial be one that is "known" by "allopaths" to be highly treatable by "conventional" medicine, and that without treatment the results are serious. Like severe diabetes, with careful monitoring. Any other ideas? I feel that this will be a very rugged test of homeopathy, and the resultant total failure or success of either "allopathic" or homeopathic medicine will be impossible to ignore. What say Hahnemann or Timokay?

 

http://www.seacoastnh.com/history/rev/washdeath.html reports the following essential details of the death of George Washington, although not as good as the case report by the two quacks:

This is a typical Aconite case, and all of these are symptoms are characteristic of Aconite:

Cold from exposure rapidly increases in severity beyond the norm, even to pneumonia.

Hoarseness and severe throat pain precluding any swallowing, especially of liquids is very characteristic of Aconite.

Respiration labored (in a cold?) is characteristic of Aconite, as is the odd cough that was almost described here.

Blood coagulates or clots (a stroke medicine and very famous in heart disease) is characteristic of Aconite.

Predicts the time of his death (very characteristic of Aconite, and very few other medicines do this).

Pains are extreme but borne without complaint (very characteristic of the stupidly patriarchal Aconite patient).

Restlessness, the tossing in bed is very characteristic of Aconite.

Stubborn, very patriarchal, very “manly” but stupid, confusing unnecessary suffering for courage.

http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/books_online.shtml
http://www.minutus.org/acon.htm
http://homeoint.org/hering/index.htm
http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep/index.htm
http://homeoint.org/allen/index.htm

 

If you think it is possible to practice homeopathy, as you're suggesting, WITHOUT observational skills and without attempting to pry out of patients details they usually write off as unimportant, go join the ranks of the ignoramuses called low-potency pseudo-homeopaths, for you are TOTALLY unfit to do Hahnemannian homeotherapeutics.

Try to make homeopathic medicines work in allopathic ways and you'll just kill your patients like allopaths do.

Happy now?

Go be a quack in your own circles, sir, for I'm sure you're really good at it!

 

Replacement therapies are NOT cures.

In fact, insulin-dependent diabetics die one of the most outrageously horrible and agonal deaths of all allopathic patients.

Ever seen a convulsive death, pal?

Their life expectancy is also no different from people who intelligently avoid such vile involvments with well-meaning allopathic quacks.

 

Hans

 

A poisonous plant, of course.

 

Bashing allopathy does not prove homeopathy, even if you could manage it without lying.

Hans

 

It's actually worse than that isn't it, Hans? A Type 1 diabetic presenting for the first time in a ketoacidotic crisis has a life expectancy of hours to days. If a homeopath managed to 'cure' one of these patients it would genuinely be a miracle. But, the likelier outcome would be (or should be) a manslaughter charge and i'd have been orphaned 40 years ago!

I don't think Hahnemannian knows the distinction between Type 1 and 2 diabetics from the way he describes them.

The more I see, the less I like of the homeopaths. I joined homeopathyhome.com because I had an interest in alternative approaches to medicine, but I've stopped posting there. If Tim and Hahnemannian are anything to judge from I don't even think I can see them as well-meaning nice people any more. I wouldn't want children to see people like them. Scary people!

F.

P.s. Hands up any homeopaths who can produce verifiable evidence that they have brought an unconscious ketoacidotic diabetic back from the brink. These cases won't even have been 'soiled' by allopathy 'cos they're new cases. Just a thought. F.

 

Well, for total failure to produce insulin, with a ketoacidotic crisis already developing, expectancy might be down to days, depending, of course, on food intake, but most patients do not progress that fast. Before insulin, some died during crises, others slowly, literally starved to death. Some could be done by diet, but not much.

It seems Hahnemannian needs to depict modern medicine as a killer cult in order to try and make homeopathy look good. In itself, homeopathy is harmless, but when patients are encouraged to abandon medical treatment, it gets dangerous. It is funny how some people tend to project: H accuses allopathy of killing people, but if he got it his way, he would be the killer.

I have no illusions of convincing him of anything, but I see it as my duty to expose him for what he is.

BTW, in my neck of the woods, it has recently become possible for diabetes patients to take out life insurance on the same terms as other people. That should tell you something.

Hans

 

Hans

Thanx for the info. F.