Message 6 of 142 (426638) 10-08-2007 4:15 AM

Reply to: Message 3 by molbiogirl 10-08-2007 12:51 AM

This is what you are facing here: people's personal relationships with those who heal them. Dissecting studies here does not make a whit of difference, you're correct. I know the bias you bring to the dissection and other people may have different but equally valid interpretations.

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Message 18 of 142 (426740) 10-08-2007 4:45 PM

Reply to: Message 15 by molbiogirl 10-08-2007 4:22 PM

Do I understand that it is likely that a homeopathic preparation does not contain a single molecule of anything but water? Yes.

Is it "nothing but water"? A scientist would say so. The original idea was that the "memory" of the substance is retained in the water. Like I said, I haven't looked into it and I don't know enough to be able to comment knowledgeably. However, as you are well aware, I believe that there are potentially many aspects about the world we live in that are waiting to be discovered. We don't know it all. Maybe we don't even know it all about water.

If it works, it works. What's the deal?

You mean the majority of people, even doctors, aren't always right? Are you sure that's what you want to be saying to me?

Message 19 of 142 (426745) 10-08-2007 4:49 PM

Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate 10-08-2007 4:36 PM

Because she has helped me and many others. My mainstream doctors were the ones responsible for the particular help I needed from my ND, because of the drugs they gave me. I go with what works.

Message 49 of 142 (426992) 10-09-2007 12:26 PM

Reply to: Message 20 by molbiogirl 10-08-2007 4:58 PM

She's a practicing neurologist.

Message 62 of 142 (427220) 10-10-2007 1:14 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by molbiogirl 10-07-2007 6:12 PM

Homeopathy

memory of Water

Message 66 of 142 (427693) 10-12-2007 12:24 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by molbiogirl 10-07-2007 6:12 PM

One reason I've read about why some homeopathy studies fail to show results. It's because they take one remedy at one potency and give it to all the people showing one same symptom. The remedy doesn't work for most and homeopathy is declared quack medicine.

But, the one of the first premises of homeopathy is that you do not treat one symptom, you treat the totality of symptoms. This would lead to choosing several different remedies for these people.

Homeopathy has been given to dogs and infants with good effects, and these are not prone to a placebo effect.

Prescribed well, I'd be happy to try it as an adjunct to other therapies.

Message 83 of 142 (456311) 02-17-2008 2:24 AM

Reply to: Message 74 by Admin 02-16-2008 12:41 PM

What we should be discussing is not whether all these people are deluded, but what is going on here and how homeopathy works. Surely it's a topic worthy of more investigation, as are many things that are thrown out as "crank" notions. Me, I like being a crank.

Message 88 of 142 (456323) 02-17-2008 8:52 AM

Reply to: Message 87 by Rrhain 02-17-2008 7:24 AM

If you're trying to win a debate with me? It's a non-starter. I've already said that homeopathy, like other topics I've discussed here, does not fit with the definition of science that many here hold. That isn't to say that it can't be investigated by science. But science first has to accept that something exists to investigate, and some people seem to think that anything which does not fit the materialistic reductionist paradigm is delusional and therefore unfit for study.

There are studies on homeopathy which are negative. There are studies on vitamins which are negative. Most scientists don't investigate the paranormal in the first place because they don't accept that it exists -- or they know what will happen to their reputations if they try. Anyone with a closed mind, anyone from a pharmaceutical company who wants to eliminate some competition, etc etc can produce a negative study. What about all the people who attest that these things exist? Logically you can write them all off as being delusional, mistaken, victims of the placebo effect. Maybe this applies to some but I think it's insulting to humanity in general to lump them all in this category and tell them that they are wrong, every last person.

Science needs to establish that a positive effect from homeopathy exists, like Rupert Sheldrake is doing for telepathy, dogs who know their ownders are coming come, and the sense of being stared at. Then science needs to investigate how it works.

BTW, no one is sure how homeopathy does work, though there are plenty of ideas. This website talks a little about how water can be influenced by thought. I've read Dr. Emoto's book. He doesn't talk specifically about homeopathy, but he has been investigating properties of water. You'll probably think this this is total lunacy, but it's an enjoyable read.

Message 91 of 142 (456341) 02-17-2008 10:58 AM

Reply to: Message 89 by subbie 02-17-2008 9:38 AM

Just because some studies were done that show negative results? If I looked into this seriously, I would want to know who did the studies and what their interests were, who paid for the studies, and I'd want to read the studies themselves to discover the methodoligies, how subjects were selected, etc. All of these things are relevant and can affect results. For example, I am aware of a recent vitamin E study which counted the results of people who had dropped out of the study, in the final results, and then declared that vitamin E supplements are useless. I am aware of another one which used the synthetic form of vitamin E, DL-alpha tocopherol, and then declared a similar result. Most people with any knowledge of vitamins already know that DL-alpha-tocopherol is next to useless. So why use it in a study? Pure ignorance, a desire for a negative result, or what? It happens. Then when people like me claim that studies can be biased, we are written off as bitter conspiracy theorists.

In other words, more people with closed minds. How about a mind which is open to unbiased inquiry? Surely that's what every scientist should aim for.

And why are all of these things written off as crackpot notions? No offense intended, but have you seriously looked into the evidence that exists for any of them? For example there is a lot of compelling evidence for the existence of a large unknown primate, sasquatch if you will, and there are reports from every state in the US except Hawaii, documented by researchers and made by people who include scientists, police and lawyers. I could link you to a very good site that discusses all of these things in a scientific manner. Surely when this kind of evidence exists, the least science can do it give it a nod and say that it's worth looking into.

And what kind of proof are you after? Scientific proof? When scientists decide to investigate any of these things in a proper organised, well-funded way, let me know. At the moment from what I can see, these topics are laughed off as magic and superstition. Undeterred, people remain open to them and use them or study them if they appear to have legitimacy in their eyes. What's more, it's entirely possible that the usual gold standard randomised studies will never produce positive results for something like Tarot readings, and scientifically they could be dismissed as meaningless. Maybe there are some phenomena that do not yield their secrets so well in these kinds of trials. But I am beginning to imagine a lecture from Percy here, he and I have been over this before. It's possible he may decide that if I continue to call scientific methodology into question and use this to try to legitimise "magic," I might be looking at my walking orders from this forum.

Does that mean that someone who uses homeopathy is "irrational"? Why? Wouldn't you use something that was safe and made you feel better, if that was what you discovered it seemed to do?

I'm not dismissing everyone who has done a negative study on homeopathy. But how many people have investigated it systematically? I would want to have much more knowledge at my fingertips in order to pass comment on these studies. For example, the vitamin E studies I mentioned. If I hadn't known that DL-tocopherol is useless as a supplement, and if I hadn't discovered that this was what was used in that study, I might have been puzzled by the results it claimed. I don't know as much about homeopathy as I know about vitamins.

At the end of the day, are we going to persuade each other? Probably not. But people will continue to do what works for them, whatever that may be.

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Message 94 of 142 (456350) 02-17-2008 11:26 AM

Reply to: Message 90 by Granny Magda 02-17-2008 9:42 AM

I've just addressed this point in my message to Subbie, if you'd care to have a look.

I'm afraid I don't. Quantum physics has existed as a branch of science for decades and the Higgs Boson was predicted in mathematical models. Scientists are hoping they will find this particle because it fits so theoretically well into the way they already understand the quantum world to work. They will be puzzled if they can't find evidence for its existence.

What really interests me is how science could accept something as mind-blowing as quantum physics. It's difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how it could be married with what we see in the day-to-day world. I think science has hardly begun to address this. Everything we see, made up of quarks? Uncertainty about whether we have a wave or a particle? Good heavens, they're even asking us to believe in this non-stuff called dark matter. And yet . . . homeopathy? Ghosts? The healing power of prayer? Bigfoot? These are dismissed as delusion? Maybe they are rejected in this way because they can't (to our knowledge) be mathematically modelled the way quantum physics can be.

Not necessarily. It depends on why these studies in homeopathy were done and why they were negative. I would want to find out more about them. Again, I've explained this in more detail to Subbie. And my point was that a materialistic reductionist, which describes much of the modern scientific establishment, would never consider homeopathy worthy of study to begin with. This can be seen in the claim that in order to have an effect, a homeopathic remedy must retain some of the original diluted substance. The idea of energy or memory somehow being transmitted in the water is dismissed out of hand.

Regarding the two studies you have linked. The first is from the Lancet, and its abstract begins like this: "Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible." Just a tad biased from the start then?

The second link calls for "further high quality studies." I agree. Bring 'em on.

Just to let you know, I've had this alt med/scientific method discussion a hundred times over with people here. We're butting heads really. Forgive me for being a little tongue in cheek at times but I'm aware that the skeptics here see me as irrational, contradictory and gullible. I'm sorry about that and I happen not to agree, but I enjoy conversation here anyway and I've learned a lot from it, even if it's not necessarily what people here are hoping to teach me.

Message 102 of 142 (456388) 02-17-2008 5:17 PM

Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw 02-17-2008 11:39 AM

Buzsaw I only recently noticed that you popped by Herb Allure. I left you a PM there.