The Organon of Medicine

[Francine]

Originally posted by timokay


If so, I fail to understand your concerns about 138.

In that case, why bother with a DBPC trial? What does it do that working with Aph 138 doesn't?

I assume you accept that provings using Aph 138 are not identical with a DBPC.

However, if you think they are identical you need to lay out side by side the protocol for one and demonstrate that each step has its direct equivalent in the other before I can see them as being interchangeable.

If you agree they are not identical, then one is better than the other, yet at the moment you are saying both are right, which they can't be.

F.x

 

[timokay]

Francine,

Originally posted by timokay
If so, I fail to understand your concerns about 138.

Francine: In that case, why bother with a DBPC trial? What does it do that working with Aph 138 doesn't?

I interpret things in another way. The first thing to do is to establish the proving procedure of Hahnemann as being fundamentally sound and, in principle, acceptable to Science. THEN, adapt Hahnemann's procedure to the requirements of Scientific DBPC testing. Can it be done, and how? These are the fundamental issues.

Science is not accepting the Hahnemann proving, so that is why we must "bother with a DBPC trial?"

If they accepted the provings then Homeopathy would be in Science now.

I assume you accept that provings using Aph 138 are not identical with a DBPC.

Of course they are not identical, but I was hoping that the Hahnemann's procedure could remain intact - and is adapted to become a DBPC trial. It must work that way or it will be the Homeopaths that will be rejecting it.

However, if you think they are identical you need to lay out side by side the protocol for one and demonstrate that each step has its direct equivalent in the other before I can see them as being interchangeable.

If you agree they are not identical, then one is better than the other, yet at the moment you are saying both are right, which they can't be.

Not identical. Being better is not the issue. Being acceptable to Science is. It means whatever it takes to bring the provings into Science...even if means abandoning Hahnemann's provings (That is how important this is.)

Tim

 

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Yah know, ole buddy, ole pal, ole gumbo, I really love it when you thoroughly prove that you're a stupid, ignorant piece of crap:

Feel like the piece of shite you are yet, 'cause you've certainly got it all over your face!

Gee, Hahnemanniac, I can site hundreds of case studies just like that from psychic healers who claim cures of all manner of disease. Without independent verification, they are worthless anecdotes from delusional quack homeopath practitioners and their equally deluded patients.

Nice try, though!

 

[Hahnemannian]

Originally posted by BTox
Gee, Hahnemanniac, I can site hundreds of case studies just like that from psychic healers who claim cures of all manner of disease. Without independent verification, they are worthless anecdotes from delusional quack homeopath practitioners and their equally deluded patients.

Nice try, though!

You really are MORE stupid than you constantly demonstrate.

And you obviously cannot read either, you jackass!

The CAT scans and X-Rays are part of the hospital record, as are the preparations for surgery.

Shut up, you stupid fool!

 

[Hahnemannian]

Francine (David Tate, aka Benji Mouse and Manon Thebus),

That is a pair of case reports by a hyper-expert Hahnemannian.

If you're suggesting it is just coincidental that cure followed Hering's Laws of Cure after being precipitated by the four Laws of Therapeutics in a pair of masterful case analyses and prescriptions, I'll bet you believe the magic-bullet theory of the Kennedy Asassination.

 

[Hahnemannian]

Originally posted by Francine
In that case, why bother with a DBPC trial? What does it do that working with Aph 138 doesn't?

I assume you accept that provings using Aph 138 are not identical with a DBPC.

However, if you think they are identical you need to lay out side by side the protocol for one and demonstrate that each step has its direct equivalent in the other before I can see them as being interchangeable.

If you agree they are not identical, then one is better than the other, yet at the moment you are saying both are right, which they can't be.

F.x

Francine, did you still not understand what I said?

You all are like children.

We have to tell you things 21 gazillion times, and then you still don't get it.

Assuming you are not talking about merely proving that these ultramolecular drugs are medicinal, which is easily proven, then you must be talking about clinical trials.

In this case, you name diseases, we don't.

We make prescriptions, you don't.

What is there to test when you guys are total quacks?

 

[Francine]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Francine (David Tate, aka Benji Mouse and Manon Thebus),

That is a pair of case reports by a hyper-expert Hahnemannian.

If you're suggesting it is just coincidental that cure followed Hering's Laws of Cure after being precipitated by the four Laws of Therapeutics in a pair of masterful case analyses and prescriptions, I'll bet you believe the magic-bullet theory of the Kennedy Asassination.

My story contained just as remarkable a coincidence yet not a homeopath in sight. Do you ever actually think through the points made to you before you start ranting?

 

[Hahnemannian]

Originally posted by Francine
My story contained just as remarkable a coincidence yet not a homeopath in sight. Do you ever actually think through the points made to you before you start ranting?

It did?

Show me a single Law of Medicine involved in it?

Show me the logical methodology applied to determine the simillimum ("thing most similar") by a hyper-expert physician.

-----------

And how about this issue:

The person who will produce an important symptom cannot be predicted, so there is no control for this.


There is no way to do what you went on about.

Did you not understand what I said?

 

[Persol]

You completely fail to see her point. People sometimes DO completely recover with any external interference. If this was the case, it wouldn't matter what anybody else did... they would still be healed (as long as the treatment wasn't harmful).

Isolated case studies of 1 or 2 people do not prove anything. A simple investigation of 'chance' will tell you this.

 

[Francine]

Persol's right, you miss the point.

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Show me a single Law of Medicine involved in it?

There probably wasn't one of your 'Laws', the patient just got better. If you want me to cite a law I'd say the only one at work was the law of chance whch says on any given day some patients with longstanding medical problems will just get better anyway

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Show me the logical methodology applied to determine the simillimum ("thing most similar") by a hyper-expert physician.

Obviously there wasn't one because this patient didn't need one, and the point is that you can't tell whether your two patients needed one. If the patient in my case history didn't, yours may not have. Just because a homeopath treated them in the days before they got better doesn't prove that they had anything to do with it.

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
The person who will produce an important symptom cannot be predicted, so there is no control for this.

No one else sees a problem with this. I'll bet my back case patient had her uncommon symptoms as well, she still got better on her own, so you can't point at the uncommon symptoms of your two patients then claim the credit for any homeopath who happened to be there at the time. If we stacked up a hundred patients and didn't treat them with homeopathy (actually let the homeopath take the case, but subsitute blank remedies is what would really be done) and another hundred and treated them, then we'd see whether yours got better any faster. That's all a trial is. The homeopaths can take all the history they want and treat with all the uncommon symptoms factored in, that's all OK, but if they don't get better faster than the other hundred patients then homeopathy still did nothing for them. You might not like the way trials have been done so far, but that's a separate issue, what you can't say is that trials are impossible.

I know you don't like the trials that have been done because you say they all involved LPH or HPH, but if those people can't be trusted in trials they can't be trusted in the outside world either, so then all your millions of patients is reduced to a handful treated by your Taliban wing of homeopathy. Are you really saying that LPH or HPH never get their patients better? Even if you say they don't, it still doesn't get you out from the problem I put in the previous paragraph.

Do you really not understand these ideas? Every time someone asks you a difficult question you abuse them and go on about your Laws even though we keep pointing to exceptions that show your 'Laws' are either irrelevant or wrong.


Oh, and the court jester act is very tiresome. I think by now we could write your posts for you, we've seen it so many times. I only came to these discussions because I had got interested in homeopathy after people I knew had tried it, maybe they'll be less happy now they can see how homeopaths respond to criticism.

There comes a point where there's no point in trying to get you to respond reasonably, anyone lurking and reading these discussions can draw their own conclusions, I don't think we're going to get a sensible answer, but who can know for sure, maybe you'll surprise me by replying without insults and actually tackle the question: how can you tell the patients in your case histories didn't get better by coincidence just like the patient in my one?

Cheers. F.

 

[timokay]

Persol,

You completely fail to see her point.

Francine, as hahnemannian points out, is a man (or a mouse) but not a woman. He/it is otherwise known as Man on The bus & David Tate on the BBC Horizon current science forums, and Benjy Mouse on the Homeopathyhome forums (and possibly more names, who knows?).

I easily found David Tate's research papers on Medline, (knowing that he is British) confirming his initials, and leading me to find out much more about him from directories. So, he is no longer anonymous. Hahnemannian will be e-mailed these findings. Perhaps then "Francine" (and the others - who consistently make the same spelling mistakes) will not keep pretending not to be these people when we challenge him.

(It gets annoying when two people are ganging up on you on a forum only to find they are the same person. A man using a woman's name, and signing with F.x is also a little sickening. Perhaps you PERSOL are just another one of them? No you're not, but consider how puerile it is to do this kind of thing.)

Isolated case studies of 1 or 2 people do not prove anything. A simple investigation of 'chance' will tell you this.

The problem is that you just live in a theoretical world. Hahnemannian (Albert) lives in the REAL WORLD. You don't see what happens in practice. It is NOT 1 or 2. It is definitely NOT chance, though obviously things like that CAN happen.

Also, you are implying that a whole profession of people ARE MISTAKEN. What planet are you from? Do you think Hahnemannian is being fooled?

 

[Francine]

Originally posted by timokay
The first thing to do is to establish the proving procedure of Hahnemann as being fundamentally sound

But we've been showingyou why it isn't.

Originally posted by timokay
and, in principle, acceptable to Science.

so it's not.

Originally posted by timokay
Being better is not the issue.

Being correct is the issue. Aph 138 is wrong and is incompatible with logic now we know the problems that creep into these sorts of experiments. Dr H didn't know what we know now so that is his excuse.

I believe you have a saying in England 'You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.

Cheers. F.x

 

[timokay]

Francine,

I'm not falling for that. You spell practise "practice" for a start, and end your posts with "Must Dash" or "Cheers". You are British, and a man (of sorts). Do you want me to reveal all?

There is some American connection for sure. Maybe you have worked there or work there now. But you are British...I think Albert senses that too.

I will read back to see if you have addressed the issue you claim.

Earlier on this thread you posted, in response to a "snappy" reply from me:

Oh, dear, I feel the sunny spell has ended. Why do you keep doing this?

This is the first time on sciforums we have clashed. So you must be referring to another forum. Yet, there is no Francine on any other forum.

 

[Francine]

Oops browser crash again.

Oh, the original's gone now. Haven't got time to rewrite it. Back later.

 

[timokay]

Francine/whoever,

"138 PROVING : "....symptoms that come on at this time, while the powerful medicine dominates the subject's economy, arise from the medicine and not spontaneously."

FRAN: From his description of a proving Dr H would have accepted the nausea as caused by Bryonia, but common sense would doubtless make him see the squashing as being caused by something else.

TIM: Dr H was believed to have common sense, silly.

Do you object to this process needing to record all NEW symptoms introduced by the medicine, as opposed to absolutely ALL symptoms the prover is perceiving?

FRAN: Either is a problem. The problem is with your phrase (on this occasion) 'introduced by the medicine'. You can only tell whether something has been 'introduced' by an intervention under test by assessing whether it is different from control. Yes the control can be the same subject pre-test (but there are major drawbacks to this that need careful design to avoid), or other contemporaneous subjects, but you absolutely cannot say for any individual that something new arising after the intervention was for sure caused by the intervention.

TIM: Agreed. For any individual, there is a problem. But this is a group effort, each prover doing 15-20 experiments on the medicine/placebo. By contemporaneous I assume you mean no more than all subjects involved in the experiments handled the same way at the same time (and blind to medicine/placebo).

You can only discover an average response for a group as a whole compared with controls. Also, contemporaneous controls in medical trials are essential because the mere fact of doing anything to a subject could alter their responses if you are only following individuals longitudinally with time instead in an unblinded manner. It's also why things must be randomised, so you mustn't give everybody the blank today and the substance under test next week.

TIM: Fine. See no problem except the doctor gathering the symptoms will know for sure who the placebo people are, and so will not be blind. (I think Science would accept this though because it is neither aware or interested in that fact since it is outside Science.) You may think symptoms are vague, spurious or random things, but homeopaths know otherwise.

FRAN: I think i've just realized that you can't drop the idea that for a given individual you can say that something happened because of the test intervention rather than it just happening anyway. But you can't know, you really really can't.

TIM: We've just agreed on "average response" among many!
Things don't "just happen anyway" in the real situation without being recognized as anomolies. You have no understanding of "solidity of symptoms". It is a kind of "theoretical mindset" you have. In practice, these things are very real, and not vague notions to be confused with meteorites and flu bugs. The docs. monitoring the expts are smart people with about 20 years experience of handling sick people and thousands of symptoms.

FRAN: If you give me a drug that is meant to drop blood pressure and mine goes down, it might be because of the drug, because on average that it is what the drug does, but mine might have gone down anyway, or it might have gone down more, but in me the drug actually relatively raises my BP and really you shold have given me something tat worked properly.

TIM: Your theoretical world again. It's like eternally questioning the possibility of being able to ride a bicycle but never trying.

You say Dr H was wrong about APH138 only because you only live in this theoretical world and misunderstand things...make wrong assumptions. Dr H cracked the whole problem in the practical world. If you experienced it practically yourself you would agree, and at the same time your misunderstandings about the problem would become evident.

FRAN: For me as an individual for many medical states you just cannot tell. There are obviously a few dramatic things like giving an anaesthetic where it would be hard to say that the patient falling asleep and letting someone cut her open was mere coincidence, but in lots of medicine you don't deal with such a clear-cut issue

TIM: You are groping in the dark. In practice, everything is clear-cut. Say more on that last point later.

Tim

 

[wet1]

This subject is closed due to several members who insist on complaining about each other through reported posts. Further opening of the same subject, either through reopening the subject or re-titling as something else will result in more closed threads or the deletion of the thread. Grow up people.