You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Show THAT Homeopathy works
- Thread starter timokay
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
:bugeye: The bottom line is that these homeopath supporters don't see the world scientifically and have little interest in critical, skeptical thinking. Trying to argue with them is like trying to argue with a fundamentalist Christian; you don't get anywhere. They aren't going to rationally consider your arguments. No amount of reason or logic will get them to change their mind, because they don't form opinions or make decisions based on reason and logic. Trying to convince them that homeopathy is at best useless will be about as productive as banging your head against a wall.
Nasor,
Can you state your position on this subject then?
If you are going to say Homeopathy does not work, then kindly give references to illustrate it, please.
No serious discussion can follow from Global Statements from one party who has not even looked at the literature. There is simply no contest.
The majority of debaters, I find, y refuse to look up anything...a "Does/Doesn't Work" argument is much easier.
So, please present your opinion and how you got to it.
Tim
Can you state your position on this subject then?
If you are going to say Homeopathy does not work, then kindly give references to illustrate it, please.
No serious discussion can follow from Global Statements from one party who has not even looked at the literature. There is simply no contest.
The majority of debaters, I find, y refuse to look up anything...a "Does/Doesn't Work" argument is much easier.
So, please present your opinion and how you got to it.
Tim
I'm about to violate my own advice by responding here.Originally posted by timokay
Nasor,
Can you state your position on this subject then?
If you are going to say Homeopathy does not work, then kindly give references to illustrate it, please.
No serious discussion can follow from Global Statements from one party who has not even looked at the literature. There is simply no contest.
The majority of debaters, I find, y refuse to look up anything...a "Does/Doesn't Work" argument is much easier.
So, please present your opinion and how you got to it.
Tim
Homeopathy was vaguely plausible when it was developed (the early 19th century) because at the time no one knew much of anything about how or why people got sick. It has since been refuted by the basic principles of chemistry, pathology, and pharmacology. If homeopathy sounds plausible to you, it means that you are either woefully ignorant of basic science or have absolutely no critical thinking ability.
Nasor,
I would say they are two of my strongest points. To be on the safe side, please don't tell my employers in the Middle East who paid over $1.3M for my services, about it.
I have a degree in the medical sciences. The difference between you and I is that I have actually studied all the material.
Tim
If homeopathy sounds plausible to you, it means that you are either woefully ignorant of basic science or have absolutely no critical thinking ability.
I would say they are two of my strongest points. To be on the safe side, please don't tell my employers in the Middle East who paid over $1.3M for my services, about it.
I have a degree in the medical sciences. The difference between you and I is that I have actually studied all the material.
Tim
Originally posted by timokay
Can you state your position on this subject then?
If you are going to say Homeopathy does not work, then kindly give references to illustrate it, please.
No serious discussion can follow from Global Statements from one party who has not even looked at the literature. There is simply no contest.
The majority of debaters, I find, y refuse to look up anything...a "Does/Doesn't Work" argument is much easier.
So, please present your opinion and how you got to it.
Tim
Let's be honest here. The majority of debators have read the literature. It is clear, homeopathy does not work better than placebo. All well controlled clinical trials show this. A few shoddily constructed trials show a slight clinical effect in favor of homeopathy, but this effect has not been reproducible. You and others claim that homeopathy doesn't just mask symptoms, it actually cures disease. Where are the clinical trials that homeopathy has cured any disease? Even the positive clinicals only show minor improvement in symptoms, no cures. None. The only evidence appears to be Hahnemann's writings from 200 years ago. Again, no one has been able to reproduce his findings.
The onus is on you to demonstrate proof that homeopathy has any physiological activity at all. So far, you've failed miserably.
Last edited:
OK, so you have the money and the education. Stop stalling and show us the experimental proof. You already went through this last year with some people over at the JREF forum, double-blind trials and all. Are you just pretending to be interested in testing, or are you serious? If you are serious, what are you waiting for?Originally posted by timokay
*snip* To be on the safe side, please don't tell my employers in the Middle East who paid over $1.3M for my services, about it.
I have a degree in the medical sciences. The difference between you and I is that I have actually studied all the material.
Tim
Hans
Originally posted by timokay
I would say they (basic science and critical thinking) are two of my strongest points.
I also have an incredibily hard time accepting this while seeing how you don't seem to be able to manage conducting a double blind placebo controlled study without major help.
I would nearly go so far as to say that being good at basic science and critical thinking requires little more than understanding and being able perform a few basic experiment types of which the double blind placebo controlled study is a big one.
In December 1996, a lengthy report was published by the the Homoeopathic Medicine Research Group (HMRG), an expert panel convened by the Commission of the European Communities. The HMRG included homeopathic physician-researchers and experts in clinical research, clinical pharmacology, biostatistics, and clinical epidemiology. Its aim was to evaluate published and unpublished reports of controlled trials of homeopathic treatment. After examining 184 reports, the panelists concluded: (1) only 17 were designed and reported well enough to be worth considering; (2) in some of these trials, homeopathic approaches may have exerted a greater effect than a placebo or no treatment; and (3) the number of participants in these 17 trials was too small to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment for any specific condition [5]. Simply put: Most homeopathic research is worthless, and no homeopathic product has been proven effective for any therapeutic purpose. The National Council Against Health Fraud has warned that "the sectarian nature of homeopathy raises serious questions about the trustworthiness of homeopathic researchers." [6]
In 1997, a London health authority decided to stop paying for homeopathic treatment after concluding that there was not enough evidence to support its use. The Lambeth, Southwark, and Lewisham Health Authority had been referring more than 500 patients per year to the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital in London. Public health doctors at the authority reviewed the published scientific literature as part of a general move toward purchasing only evidence-based treatments. The group concluded that many of the studies were methodologically flawed and that recent research produced by the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital contained no convincing evidence that homeopathy offered clinical benefit [7].
http://www.familyinternet.com/quackwatch/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
In 1997, a London health authority decided to stop paying for homeopathic treatment after concluding that there was not enough evidence to support its use. The Lambeth, Southwark, and Lewisham Health Authority had been referring more than 500 patients per year to the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital in London. Public health doctors at the authority reviewed the published scientific literature as part of a general move toward purchasing only evidence-based treatments. The group concluded that many of the studies were methodologically flawed and that recent research produced by the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital contained no convincing evidence that homeopathy offered clinical benefit [7].
http://www.familyinternet.com/quackwatch/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
Scott,
Who do you think should be conducting these tests? They have to be Scientific, don't they? (Homeopaths have done their own testing reported in their Journals for 150 years).
So, for the subject testing, it must be a Scientist. Re. "major help", Homeopathy gets on very well without Science, so who needs the help?
It is the patients that need help...and Hahnemann cured very nearly all, if not all, the "incurable" chronic diseases seen today.
It is much more complicated than that, as you would see if you studied the issues. One problem is that there are considerable obstacles to actually making things happen, with funding, in this area. There have been many tests out there showing an effect, but not clear-cut enough to turn Scientific heads.
This issue has so much momentum in one direction, it will need considerable clear-cut evidence to reverse it.
But, "turning heads" must happen, with clear, repeatable results.
I am still searching for the best strategies to use. This subject is still fairly new to me, so it's a learning curve for me. I don't know why the researchers are not making significant progress. Peter Fisher, director of medical research at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, seems to be the top man in Britain. I plan to contact him when all the alternatives have been thrashed out.
I think it is not a matter of Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled testing until some groundwork is done on all the possible approaches to the problem.
The subject of this topic (above) includes four examples, and a few more available now, which need to be discussed.
These new ones relate to bacterial diseases in which "in vitro" testing of curative agents is possible, i.e., microbiological studies.
It is then only a matter of introducing the appropriate "potentized" homeopathic medicines to conclusively show their efficacy.
(Still searching for the most appropriate disease agents.)
I also have an incredibily hard time accepting this while seeing how you don't seem to be able to manage conducting a double blind placebo controlled study without major help.
Who do you think should be conducting these tests? They have to be Scientific, don't they? (Homeopaths have done their own testing reported in their Journals for 150 years).
So, for the subject testing, it must be a Scientist. Re. "major help", Homeopathy gets on very well without Science, so who needs the help?
It is the patients that need help...and Hahnemann cured very nearly all, if not all, the "incurable" chronic diseases seen today.
I would nearly go so far as to say that being good at basic science and critical thinking requires little more than understanding and being able perform a few basic experiment types of which the double blind placebo controlled study is a big one.
It is much more complicated than that, as you would see if you studied the issues. One problem is that there are considerable obstacles to actually making things happen, with funding, in this area. There have been many tests out there showing an effect, but not clear-cut enough to turn Scientific heads.
This issue has so much momentum in one direction, it will need considerable clear-cut evidence to reverse it.
But, "turning heads" must happen, with clear, repeatable results.
I am still searching for the best strategies to use. This subject is still fairly new to me, so it's a learning curve for me. I don't know why the researchers are not making significant progress. Peter Fisher, director of medical research at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, seems to be the top man in Britain. I plan to contact him when all the alternatives have been thrashed out.
I think it is not a matter of Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled testing until some groundwork is done on all the possible approaches to the problem.
The subject of this topic (above) includes four examples, and a few more available now, which need to be discussed.
These new ones relate to bacterial diseases in which "in vitro" testing of curative agents is possible, i.e., microbiological studies.
It is then only a matter of introducing the appropriate "potentized" homeopathic medicines to conclusively show their efficacy.
(Still searching for the most appropriate disease agents.)
Last edited:
Nasor,
I would not call that a Scientific study. I meant a real Scientific test on Homeopathy. There are some types of Homeopathy that I would not support at all, as they defy Hahnemann's teaching.
It is therefore necessary to expand the word "Homeopathy" into its types, and consider each on its merits...and then research all the studies that gave the statistics reported in your paste above, to see "which" type of Homeopathy was tested.
Only Hahnemannian Homeopathy has my full backing at the moment.
I would not call that a Scientific study. I meant a real Scientific test on Homeopathy. There are some types of Homeopathy that I would not support at all, as they defy Hahnemann's teaching.
It is therefore necessary to expand the word "Homeopathy" into its types, and consider each on its merits...and then research all the studies that gave the statistics reported in your paste above, to see "which" type of Homeopathy was tested.
Only Hahnemannian Homeopathy has my full backing at the moment.
Last edited:
Originally posted by timokay
1). "Homeopathy must first show THAT it works - Scientifically - then it will get all the support it needs for HOW it works".
2). The problem is that Homeopaths are not Scientists.
3). So, Homeopaths cannot do Scientific research, which must be left to the Scientists.
4). There are significant obstacles to be overcome BEFORE Double-blind Placebo-controlled (DBPC) studies and test protocols should be discussed. The first step is to devise Scientific experiments which are likely to test Homeopathy successfully.
1) I agree here- homeopaths have little or no critical thinking and lack the strong background in logic that scientists have. Homeopathy is a religion and not a medical science, which explains the total denial of negative results such as in "Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions" by Oliver Wendall Holmes, M.D., Dean of Harvard Medical School, the german clinical trials about 70 years ago, and recently on the Horizons program.
2) Again, homeopaths cannot do research because they do not understand the human body or mind. The reason for testing for falsifiability under controlled conditions is to prevent things like bias, and if you attempt to prove something wrong, and it is not, it holds up a lot better than trying to prove it in the positive sense, which can prove just about anything. This is the primary problem of CAM researchers. They do not test for falsifiability, instead they merely do market research, as that is where the money is.
3) Huh? Homeopaths could easily be trained in the scientific method and logic. Four years of college and no critical thinking classes?? M.D.'s, O.D.'s, physical therapists, biologists, physicists and more are all trained in these skills over four years. Why not CAM practitioners? A recent study done in the BMJ of CAM (June issue) discovered that of a group of Naturopaths, none could understand standard peer reviewed literature due to a lack of critical thinking skills. I think the same could be said of Homeo docs.
4) Wrong. Homeopathy should be tested under the conditions which are as strongly favored to failure as possible. A test where syphillus was treated, or extreme diabetes or terminal cancer where only homeo was used would be an excellent example. No more of these conditions in which remission is high without treatment (and no control group used.) No more games. No more chronic conditions where the symptoms fluctuate over weeks, so the homeo can claim it is cured when he/she does not follow up long term. Put up or shut up. It is not that hard, you simply give the homeo's a group of patients and have them do what they do, no restrictions as long as the only treatments they give are homeopathic only.
Sound reasonable?
Quasi,
I think you should take a serious look at Homeopathy. Then, you would realise that it IS a rational medical system, every bit as disciplined as any area of Science. I can paste a summary of the ORGANON in here, if you are interested.
Re. the Holmes publication, I have not seen it so no comment. It depends on which branch of Homeopathy Holmes is referring to.
As for the Horizon programme, that had nothing whatsoever to do with Hahnemann's Homeopathy.
That is untrue. Scrutiny of Hahnemann's books, particularly the ORGANON and CHRONIC DISEASES shows a remarkable level of knowledge and understanding...essential to enable him to cure virtually all diseases.
As for testing Homeopathy, Homeopaths have been doing that for over 150 years and documenting results in their Journals.
As to "Scientific" testing, which I think you are referring to, this is a task which must be performed by Scientists, not Homeopaths or it couldn't be Scientific. (The Horizon Prog showed enormous failings in their understanding).
"Put up or shut up. Sound reasonable?"
There is a significant obstacle to be overcome, by you too, to gain mutual understanding. Being "different" is not an excuse for all the enmity.
Scientists always want to discuss it "from their perspective", but the only way to succeed, and see the logic of Hahnemann's Homeopathy, is for you to make some effort to study and try to understand it...it doesn't take long...only heavy going at first...let it sink in for a few days.
Some people can, others cannot. So, reading my summary of the ORGANON would be hard work for any Scientist, initially, but the logic of it will soon hit him, as it hit me - it convinces all reasonable people soon enough...not faith, not religion, just solid answers derived by pure experiment and logical thinking.
Peoples reaction to these books tells much more about them than the books. "Critical, skeptical thinking" is impossible unless this Homeopathy groundwork is done, because the problem of disease is addressed in a completely different way.
1) I agree here- homeopaths have little or no critical thinking and lack the strong background in logic that scientists have. Homeopathy is a religion and not a medical science, which explains the total denial of negative results such as in "Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions" by Oliver Wendall Holmes, M.D., Dean of Harvard Medical School, the german clinical trials about 70 years ago, and recently on the Horizons program.
I think you should take a serious look at Homeopathy. Then, you would realise that it IS a rational medical system, every bit as disciplined as any area of Science. I can paste a summary of the ORGANON in here, if you are interested.
Re. the Holmes publication, I have not seen it so no comment. It depends on which branch of Homeopathy Holmes is referring to.
As for the Horizon programme, that had nothing whatsoever to do with Hahnemann's Homeopathy.
2) Again, homeopaths cannot do research because they do not understand the human body or mind.
That is untrue. Scrutiny of Hahnemann's books, particularly the ORGANON and CHRONIC DISEASES shows a remarkable level of knowledge and understanding...essential to enable him to cure virtually all diseases.
As for testing Homeopathy, Homeopaths have been doing that for over 150 years and documenting results in their Journals.
As to "Scientific" testing, which I think you are referring to, this is a task which must be performed by Scientists, not Homeopaths or it couldn't be Scientific. (The Horizon Prog showed enormous failings in their understanding).
"Put up or shut up. Sound reasonable?"
The bottom line is that these homeopath supporters don't see the world scientifically and have little interest in critical, skeptical thinking. Trying to argue with them is like trying to argue with a fundamentalist Christian; you don't get anywhere.
There is a significant obstacle to be overcome, by you too, to gain mutual understanding. Being "different" is not an excuse for all the enmity.
Scientists always want to discuss it "from their perspective", but the only way to succeed, and see the logic of Hahnemann's Homeopathy, is for you to make some effort to study and try to understand it...it doesn't take long...only heavy going at first...let it sink in for a few days.
Some people can, others cannot. So, reading my summary of the ORGANON would be hard work for any Scientist, initially, but the logic of it will soon hit him, as it hit me - it convinces all reasonable people soon enough...not faith, not religion, just solid answers derived by pure experiment and logical thinking.
Peoples reaction to these books tells much more about them than the books. "Critical, skeptical thinking" is impossible unless this Homeopathy groundwork is done, because the problem of disease is addressed in a completely different way.
Last edited:
Re: Re: Show THAT Homeopathy works
Do you have an online reference for this or do we need to get a hard-copy? In any case, can you give the full citation?
Thanx
Originally posted by Quasi
A recent study done in the BMJ of CAM (June issue) discovered that of a group of Naturopaths, none could understand standard peer reviewed literature due to a lack of critical thinking skills.
Do you have an online reference for this or do we need to get a hard-copy? In any case, can you give the full citation?
Thanx
Scott,
Physiology and Biochemistry at a British University ("University" called "College" in the USA).
But, this level of training is certainly not relevant to the Homeopathy question. Any Scientist with an A-level in Biology or equivalent is capable of fully understanding the issues.
Tim
Timokay,
What exactly is your degree in and where did you get it?
"In the medical sciences" is pretty vague.
Physiology and Biochemistry at a British University ("University" called "College" in the USA).
But, this level of training is certainly not relevant to the Homeopathy question. Any Scientist with an A-level in Biology or equivalent is capable of fully understanding the issues.
Tim
Hans,
There was not a single Scientist on the JREF forum, just people trying to pocket a million dollars from Randi's challenge. (I didn't realise this for some time.)
"Stop stalling". If you check medline (pubmed) you will find some supporting papers. The aim of this topic is to not only get a significant result from testing, but devise a test which is conclusive, and easy to run.
Going back to first principles to do that.
Stop stalling and show us the experimental proof. You already went through this last year with some people over at the JREF forum, double-blind trials and all.
There was not a single Scientist on the JREF forum, just people trying to pocket a million dollars from Randi's challenge. (I didn't realise this for some time.)
"Stop stalling". If you check medline (pubmed) you will find some supporting papers. The aim of this topic is to not only get a significant result from testing, but devise a test which is conclusive, and easy to run.
Going back to first principles to do that.
Originally posted by timokay
Scott,
Physiology and Biochemistry at a British University ("University" called "College" in the USA).
But, this level of training is certainly not relevant to the Homeopathy question. Any Scientist with an A-level in Biology or equivalent is capable of fully understanding the issues.
Tim
Can you actually name the university?
Btox,
Done that Bryonia test yet?
Evidence? Homeopaths have been doing that since his death. Homeopathy moved ahead of conventional medicine (Allopathy) in the 1850's, Homeoapthy being a medical system discovered, developed and perfected by just one man.
His 6th Edition ORGANON was his finest work, but it was not pubished until nearly sixty years after his death (1920-German, 1921-English). It contained very detailed instructions for medicine preparation which were not published or known previously, and unknown to the Homeopaths who carried Homeopathy forwards. I consider this as a possible factor in the failure of scientific testing of the forms of Homeopathy today.
WE MUST distinguish between these type of Homeopathy. They are barely related to Hahnemann's.
Hahnemann would certainly NOT accept what Homeopathy has become today (as his books explain), so attention should be focused on going right back to the beginning and using medicines made exactly as Hahnemann stated - called the "Q-potencies". I think there are only two pharmacies in the world that make these medicines as Hahnemann did.
Unfortunately, I have serious problems with how they have changed the detailed procedure, to save time/effort. E.g., they use a "ball mill" for grinding the powders for 3-hours+...Hahnemann did it by hand in a special way, and always decontaminated/sterilised his Mortar/pestle (for approx 1 hour) before using it again for the next medicine. These pharmacies do not appear to do the critical decontamination step either...I must ask them specifically about that.
Here is one of the pharmacies.
http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_info/hahnemann_labs_preparation.html
To find out what is happening with the Scientific testing, must begin right at the beginning. But, it may be that the medicine preparation is not the problem at all.
Done that Bryonia test yet?
The only evidence appears to be Hahnemann's writings from 200 years ago. Again, no one has been able to reproduce his findings.
Evidence? Homeopaths have been doing that since his death. Homeopathy moved ahead of conventional medicine (Allopathy) in the 1850's, Homeoapthy being a medical system discovered, developed and perfected by just one man.
His 6th Edition ORGANON was his finest work, but it was not pubished until nearly sixty years after his death (1920-German, 1921-English). It contained very detailed instructions for medicine preparation which were not published or known previously, and unknown to the Homeopaths who carried Homeopathy forwards. I consider this as a possible factor in the failure of scientific testing of the forms of Homeopathy today.
WE MUST distinguish between these type of Homeopathy. They are barely related to Hahnemann's.
Hahnemann would certainly NOT accept what Homeopathy has become today (as his books explain), so attention should be focused on going right back to the beginning and using medicines made exactly as Hahnemann stated - called the "Q-potencies". I think there are only two pharmacies in the world that make these medicines as Hahnemann did.
Unfortunately, I have serious problems with how they have changed the detailed procedure, to save time/effort. E.g., they use a "ball mill" for grinding the powders for 3-hours+...Hahnemann did it by hand in a special way, and always decontaminated/sterilised his Mortar/pestle (for approx 1 hour) before using it again for the next medicine. These pharmacies do not appear to do the critical decontamination step either...I must ask them specifically about that.
Here is one of the pharmacies.
http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_info/hahnemann_labs_preparation.html
To find out what is happening with the Scientific testing, must begin right at the beginning. But, it may be that the medicine preparation is not the problem at all.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.