In the late 1920's when many people thought that Homeopathy remedies had mystical effects, Nobel Laureate scientist Prof. Hans Von Euler conducted scientific tests to ascertain if Homeopathy had a scientific base.
A homeopathy pseudo-doctor killed my friend a few years ago who had breast cancer. He had her drink an elixer and later told her that her cancer was dead.
if 80x is 1 molecule / 1 our universe, then wouldn't anything above that be impossible? also wouldn't that mean that a homeopathic pill of 100x means that u have to swallow something 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than the entire universe? im going to need a BIG glass of milk!
I need to sit down and calculate the numbers, but I suppose every homeopathic solution is about a 10C solution of urine, feces, fishguts, chemical effluent, sawdust, human cadaver, and even ultra-pure water has a high level of chlorine, calcium, etc. on that scale.
@theshiznojudge No, as far as I understand it they take the original mixture, take a small part of it and put it into a glass with water, than take a drop of that and put it into new water, etc.
Maybe we need a Journal of Negative Results? A place where all failed experiments, hypotheses, trials, etc, etc can be published so that other researchers can learn from them. I'd probably be a prolific contributor!
Great video! Thanks for explaining how drug trials work and the lack of rigorous evidence for homeopathy. I always thought it was full of crap and now I know it!
@turningofthetide1 "Thanks for explaining how drug trials work and the lack of rigorous evidence for homeopathy. I always thought it was full of crap and now I know it!"
No, it's not even full of crap. It's only full of water ;-)
C0nc0rdance The articles sited show that disease is growing. I suggest that sheeple have a strong sense that modern medicine will save them. There can be no bigger placebo than the mainstream medical system. The mistake many doctors make is that they "know what is best for a patient". Many interventions happen through bullying and misdiagnosis. But what the hell, he didn't need his tonsils anyway!
This is not to discredit the obvious benefits modern medicine offers.
These are very broad, subjective arguments. Are there any objective facts to support that "Many interventions happen through bullying and misdiagnosis" or that mainstream medicine is a big placebo?
The articles describe increases in the last 10 years. Has something changed in medicine in the last 10 years that you think is causing an increase in womb cancer and celiac disease? Can you support that correlation with evidence?
C0nc0rdance Human beings are not cars. They are not as the mainstream medical belief system has us, machines that can be fixed. People generally obviously fix themselves given the correct environment, medicine and conditions. To visit a modern hospital is more like going to a Mechanic's Garage than a place for worried and hurt human beings. Even something as basic and simple as the use of fluorescent lighting is questionable as such are not conducive to human health or well being.
You've been a bit too literal in the analogy. I'm sorry you dislike hospital lighting and environment.
Humans can heal themselves. However, there are a number of things that humans cannot heal. We call them acute conditions. For examples, hypoxia, hypothermia, gangrene, acute pneumonia, multiple organ failure. There are no effective "alternative" treatments for these conditions.
I have nothing against holistic medicine, so long as we choose it based on evidence, not rhetoric.
From the recent (2007) BMJ Survey: Of around 2500 (medical) treatments reviewed, 13% were rated as beneficial, 23% likely to be beneficial, 8% as trade off between benefits and harms, 6% unlikely to be beneficial, 4% likely to be ineffective or harmful, and 46%, the largest proportion, as unknown effectiveness.
@Kingfillins There is a deceptive assumption behind your claim, and that is that all these treatments are equal in terms of how common they are and how common the diseases and conditions for which each therapy is designed are. If that were true, you might have a point, but its not. This article discusses the failings of the argument you use:
Homeopathic treatment gives relief to patients who are unable to get such from mainstream doctors. To hold up a bad call by Gloria Thomas father as evidence Homeopathy is "unjustified" is immature. If people are getting cured with Homeopathy, surely it IS WORKING. Surely it is justified. Even if it is purely placebo (which it is not) it still WORKS.
Shift your focus the deadly effects of pharmaceutical drugs for a reality check.
@Kingfillins Conventional medicine has side effects because anything that can cure a problem can cause a problem, and conversely you don't see any side effects from homeopathic treatments because it can't actually cure anything. Gloria Thomas's case was mainly used to counter claims of people saying "if its just water, then what harm could it do to just let people use it", not as evidence against its efficacy; the rest of the video discusses the evidence of its efficacy (or lack thereof).
Conventional medicine can have side effects and offer no cure. This is because one drug my help one person and harm another, but our ridiculous health model has a one size fits all approach.
I have personally had side effects from using Homeopathy. So with all due respects, you are talking crap.
If using Homeopathy in a conventional manner it would be unlikely to have side effects.
Your personal experiences are what are called an anecdote. They are the lowest form of evidence, below case study. When we apply a more rigorous experimental design, such as a randomized large population double blind control trial, no homeopathic treatment has EVER been demonstrated to work significantly better than placebo.
Even if we were to identify an anomalous result, there is no theory of homeopathy that could explain or predict the effects. It's just not science.
@C0nc0rdance Anecdotal evidence is ONE of the most important stages in the development of many inventions. To suggest it has no substance is ridiculous.
Look at the Jim Humble MMS situation. Thousands of people are finding cure with MMS. With or without clinical trials.
There are many variables in a large scale trial. Without the propped application of Homeopathy the trial is worthless anyway. There are many remedy's, one size does not fit all.
@Kingfillins At best, anecdotal evidence is cause for further research, but it is certainly not enough to base any actual claims off of as so many alt-med practitioners try to do.
@ArcanaKnight One does not need to have a scientific study to know that drinking a six pack will get you drunk.Exactly the same with putting Alovera on a burn, or the myriad of herbs used all over the world with no scientific study but with ancient examples of their benefits. If you where in the Amazon jungle, you would have no western hospital or doctor, but the locals could cure your sickness with anecdotal tried and true natural remedies. Thats why the drug companies try patent these plants.
@Kingfillins We know that Alovera works on burns because of previous experimentation and testing. The same even goes for the pre-scientific cures of medicine men; they know it works because of trial-and-error experimentation, and the knowledge gained from that was passed down to the next generations.
You know what else both Alovera and the medicine men cures have in common? They work regardless of whether you believe they will or not; the same can't be said of homeopathy.
@ArcanaKnight All medicine works better if you believe in it. The mind alone can heal serious health conditions. It is however untrue that Aloevera works on all conditions and in fact may sometimes only potentially work via placebo.
Please provide evidence Jim Humble is a "liar and a fraud".
Exactly anecdote is not just a random event, it based on personal or group experience/experimentation. It is worthy of note and respect.
@Kingfillins Assuming you're right about medicine working better with belief, there's still a huge difference between saying something will work better if you believe in it, and saying something only works if you believe in it. Asprin has an effect whether you believe it will or not; while homeopathic treatments ONLY has an effect if you believe they will. That's why people can take a whole bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills without even getting a bit sleepy.
@ArcanaKnight Homeopathics work by supporting your own inclination, they do not force. Like I said I had homeopathic side effects and did not even know that such a thing could occur until after I researched the remedies indications and found it treats blurry vision and dizziness, I got these symptoms, in other words I proved the remedy unknowingly.
No I did not get it from bandershot.
One Homeopath I met had great success with wives giving their husbands remedies secretly.
@Kingfillins "had great success with wives giving their husbands remedies secretly". That is anecdotal evidence and most likely just the experimenter effect.
"Homeopathics work by supporting your own inclination". That is essentially the same as saying, "if you believe they work, they work, and if you don't then they don't"; which again is something you never hear of aspirin.
@ArcanaKnight They support and help re align your bodies natural pattern.
If one takes a prescription drug and it does not work it may well be that the drug does not work because its effectiveness has been ghostwritten and research findings falsified.
@ArcanaKnight Glaxo chief: Our drugs do not work on most patients
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
08 December 2003
A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.
Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.
@ArcanaKnight "It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by 2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of 7.2bn."
@Kingfillins That is one reason why why we have multiple treatments for the same diseases/conditions. I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement in conventional medicine, but that is why we continue to do research to find more and better treatments. Besides, whatever the failings of conventional medicine, it doesn't change the (in)effectiveness of pseudo-scientific treatments like homeopathy..
@ArcanaKnight Yeah and it doesn't change the continuing effectiveness of Homeopathy either. And that you or anyone else cant deny. That's the classic thing, you'd ban a treatment that actually helps people.
The issue is the "harm" right? Harm comes through blindly following any treatment including conventional, and not taking responsibility for ones own health, or that of others. Ones health is a state of being and feeling. If no improvement occurs then its not working. With or without science.
@Kingfillins There is a major difference between homeopathy and Simpson's hemp oil though which you are ignoring, namely that the research HAS been done on homeopathy, and it has been overwhelmingly negative.
No, the harm comes from believing in ineffective treatments, especially when it comes at the expense of delaying or forgoing entirely the effective treatments for easily treatable diseases, such as in Gloria's case.
@ArcanaKnight "believing in ineffective treatments", yet we know that people find cure with Homeopathy. Even you suggest it is as good a placebo, (which does show benefits). You cant allow yourself to recognise the benefits of Homeopathy yet you support a drug industry that in many instances is no better than placebo.
So the harm is not the belief in a system (this could be a cure) it is as I have already clearly pointed out, in a patients lack of personal responsibility, as with all modalities
@ArcanaKnight What if we where to find that the level of dilution was the defining factor in Homeopathy. This would make most of the studies redundant, as most do not test the effect of different dilutions. There are many factors that are at play here. To suggest Homeopathy has been tested, and the case is over is ridiculous. There are many studies on high dilutions that have shown positive effects and have not been duplicated. Until such has been done you are jumping the gun.
"What if we where to find that the level of dilution was the defining factor in Homeopathy". You're ignoring the key word there (if), and continuing on as if that had already been proven. Also, the fact that those studies which have shown positive results haven't been able to be replicated is the most telling part. I'm not the one jumping the gun by saying they're ineffective; if anything you're jumping it by saying that it is effective because FUTURE research MIGHT show it to be so.
@ArcanaKnight We know little about how the mind effects matter either. Can the outcome of a study be effected by the thoughts of those involved? Mind energy is a real force. It can effect the function of the human body as I have shown.
You seem to be creating simplistic boundaries.
As we broaden our minds we broaden the capabilities of science and technology, what was one science fiction becomes a reality. Impossible or possible? Real or imagined? They r only separated by thought and ego.
@Kingfillins That is nothing more than new age quackery trying to make excuses for why homeopathy keeps failing in scientific tests, particularly since the quality of design of the tests is inversely proportional to the likelyhood of it showing a positive result.
@ArcanaKnight There you go again. Did you read the mind controlling body temp article? By your definition this is "new age quackery" Yet it is right there. Mind over matter. You are missing my point, by holding to your fixations.
I am not making any excuses. I am pointing out that dilution may very well have its limitations. But that has not been the focus of study. Most studies test traditional dilution rates, such levels may be = to placebo, less dilution may prove to be higher.
@Kingfillins Of course dilution has its limitations, that much has been known for a long time, but it is in the opposite direction than you believe. The problem is that a main tenant of homeopathy is that the more dilute it is, the stronger it is, and proponents have maintained this belief even after the discovery of avagadro's number.
@ArcanaKnight Remember we are not simply dealing with dilution, succussion is an integral part of the preparation. What we see as being "stronger" is based on a physical model. Medicine will eventually recognise that our subtle body is where the health conditions begin and eventually are seen in the physical body, this being the most solid part of our energy body. Thought directly effect the energy body as does sound and colour frequency. This is why meditation is so powerful a tool in healing
Besides, the reason why traditional dilutions are the focus of studies is because they are the ones most often prescribed. Even if you're right and it turns out they're effective at higher dilutions, it would still mean that the majority of current homeopathic cures are ineffective.
@ArcanaKnight The evidence suggests as good as placebo. It would be impossible using that study model, to differentiate the between the two. So if the dilution is most effective at a different dilution, we may simply be seeing a weaker effect, ie that of placebo.
(as a side considering placebo is the mind at play in healing, this alone calls into question the western model of medicine) Why not investigate and invest in figuring out how patients could increase the power of their mind to heal.
@Kingfillins "The evidence suggests as good as placebo." As good as placebo is the same as being ineffective; this is a point you don't seem to be getting, and is why we have placebo controlled trials in the first place. If there is no difference between whatever treatment you're promoting and a sugar pill, you're just taking advantage of people by charging them much more what is effectively nothing more than your brand of sugar pill.
@ArcanaKnight Placebo is effective, it is not the same as being "infective". It proves "mind over mater" is real.
But I have suggested that the Homeopathic may well be having a subtle effect at that particular dilution,(This then = placebo) and that this may be because it is not the optimum dilution which would show more effect.
@Kingfillins The placebo effect IS the same as being ineffective; it is basically the starting point for measuring effectiveness because EVERY treatment has it.
Yes, you have suggested that, but you don't have any actual evidence to back up that claim, so arguing that homeopathy is somehow effective based on that unproven hypothesis is not a valid argument for its current effectiveness.
@ArcanaKnight Yes there are failings in all human endeavor, that is one of the basic fundamental issues of our experience and why we are constantly evolving our understanding of existence. This article is a pointer and is useful.
I am offering what I do for discussion. To suggest there is "no evidence" to support it is incorrect and is missing the point of my discourse, thesis and science in general.
That article suffers from the same disease as anyone using science
@ArcanaKnight Science is not a weapon. The point is, mainstream medicine is limited and out of step because it is based on corporate profits. In ancient China, one payed the doctor to keep one well, if you got sick the doctor payed you. To base a health system on the sick is an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
Why? Because it is patching up the sickness caused by the other corporations selling junk food lifestyles, a sicko cycle of products, dis-ease, lies and profit.
@Kingfillins I agree that there is certainly room for improvement in medicine, but we aren't going to get anywhere by promoting treatment methods like homeopathy that have been proven to be ineffective. And again, the failings of conventional medicine doesn't make homeopathy more effective.
You're getting off topic. Anti-corporatism is fine and a perfectly debatable sentiment, but it really has no affect on the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, so would be best to leave for a different forum.
@ArcanaKnight The reality of corporate influence on our society effects all topics and is relevant here. My point re mainstream meds is that they use a model of health that is lacking. Yes it can be improved, but it is the model that is held above more natural treatments and is supposedly the gold standard in scientific achievement, that it is evidence based etc.
@ArcanaKnight This is partly an illusion to sell product, in a similar way Homeopathy is criticized, yet the attack is on natural treatments that IF USED CORRECTLY are usually harmless.
As I have pointed out Homeopath still requires further study. The quantity of studies that do show it is effective cannot be dismissed via meta analysis, rather through replication. Science is not speculation. To bring a study into question begs replication, not disqualification.
@Kingfillins "If used correctly"...Why qualify it like that? It is ALWAYS harmless because it is just water. There are numerous examples of people purposefully using it incorrectly (such as taking an entire bottle of homeopathic pills to prove ineffectiveness), and not being effected at all.
If you want it to be taken seriously, the "further study" needs to involve well designed and conducted, randomized trials with sufficient sample size that show a statistically significant effect.
@ArcanaKnight The first officially registered study of the effectiveness of homeopathy was conducted in the 19th century when an epidemic of cholera broke out in the 1850s. When the mortality from cholera in London hospitals was announced in the Parliament, information from homeopathic hospitals was not included. One of the members of Parliament insisted on obtaining information from homeopathic hospitals.....
@ArcanaKnight cont....Due to his intervention, information about the enormous benefits of homeopathy in the treatment of cholera was presented. According to data from the homeopathic hospital of London, the mortality rate of patients suffering from cholera was 16,4% while in all other hospitals it was 51,8%.
@Kingfillins It should be noted that at the time, nobody could actually treat cholera, and while medical treatments such as blood-letting were actively harmful, the homoeopaths’ treatments were at least inert.
@ArcanaKnight However the figures are significantly better for the Homeopathic hospitals. 16% to 50% So the non Homeopaths actively just killed off their patents.
Was the usual mortality rate in such hospitals that high? Surely on administering a treatment repeatedly doctors would have observed what made improvements to a patent and what did not. And would discontinue those interventions that failed.
@Kingfillins Yes, I actually said as much; some of the treatments used at the time were actually harmful. Those treatments were based off an old theory of disease (which we not know was incorrect), and it was believed that any treatment was better than no treatment; occasionally they would even see a beneficial effect (which we now know was usually just the placebo effect).
You also have to remember that evidence-based medicine is still a relatively new concept, and sadly is something that is still not universally applied to this day. Dr. Druin Burch's book Taking the Medicine about the history of medicine discusses rather well the failings of using personal experience/beliefs to determine treatment instead of basing treatments on valid scientific evidence. The situation is getting better all the time, but there is still room for improvement.
Like I have pointed to the benefits of scientific testing is studying specific isolations. However nature is not isolated, so science can be limited. Science can also prove two opposing thesis correct.
I suggest you seek a more neutral account of the Flexner report and the emergence of modern medicine. The tone here was far from objective: "both of these men were petty, vindictive and corrupt" and a few points were factually false.
Fishbein, for example, campaigned against charlatans, and advocated greater control over medical devices, so that snake oil remedies couldn't be sold as cures for cancer unless they had actually proven their claims. Hardly petty and vindictive!
@Kingfillins Is that supposed to be a neutral source? I've actually spoken with Ullman before, and I was disappointed to see find he uses the same fallacious arguments as other homeopathy proponents. That article was based on an exerpt from one of Ullman's books (which is nothing but the appeal to celebrity fallacy) in which he makes several bogus claims about historical figures.
ww w. quackometer. net /blog/2007/12/homeopathic-revolution-by-dana-ullman. html
@ArcanaKnight Is that supposed to be a neutral source?
I posted that source as it is more accurate in terms of the culprits "positions" in the AMA.
May I suggest that you might entertain the fact that their is reason to reject more "Alternative" medical interventions, beyond the need for "evidence" via scientific study and therefore approval by the FDA, AMA and such like.
@ArcanaKnight In other words is it possible that such a massive industry would or could allow a contradictory model of health to be given any mainstream creditability and thus call into question its beliefs and practices?
@Kingfillins So, that was the point of posting the last article? How is that reading between the lines? The article explicitly tried to make that point.
But to answer your question, yes. If they could prove effectiveness, especially if they could explain exactly how it supposedly works, I think that it would eventually be accepted.
@ArcanaKnight OK, so how is it possible for a medical modality that recognises a different model of human health, pathology and physiology and therefore one that cannot necessarily be tested using the mainstream methods of analysis?
ie "The Human organism functions as an elaborate physico-chemical complex, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry". If this was not true, how would one study such, as the laws of physics and chemistry (the basic model of mainstream analysis) would not apply?
@Kingfillins Well, first you would need to prove that the old model is incorrect and that yours is correct which, as I said, would be no small task. Then, they would have to find a way of testing their modality's effectiveness based on this newly proven theory.
@ArcanaKnight It seems clear the old model proves its self incorrect by its own assumptions about the human being. ie Symptoms of disease is the disease.
It is fundamentally scientifically incorrect to say cancer, AIDS, arthritis, influenza, etc., are diseases. They are not diseases at all, but symptoms of the disease process.
@Kingfillins That is actually not proof, its just your opinion, and not even one based on evidence or a basic understanding of the germ theory of disease.
You're partially right, it would be incorrect that some of those are diseases (some are actually conditions or disorders). You do realize that not everything that goes wrong with our health is classified as a disease, right?
@Kingfillins Okay... You're still a long way from disproving the current theory of disease, let alone proving your alternative hypothesis.
Your arguments are just getting broader and more nebulous as you go. Are you hoping that eventually you'll say something that is factually correct or at least agreeable simply due to the fact that it is so general and vague?
Modern scientific medicine has created a phenomenal world wide dependence upon pharmaceutical drugs which has resulted in the emergence of a brand new epidemic of diseases called iatrogenic diseases. It is this epidemic of iatrogenic diseases which is claimed to be largely responsible for the correlation between increased numbers of doctors and increased mortality.
@Kingfillins Your argument is again based on a fallacy. Focusing only on the harm ignores all the lives saved by it and a number of other factors. Medicine may kill a few tens of thousand a year, but it also saves hundreds of thousands (over 340,000 saved in 2000 from advances in treatment of coronary heart disease alone). Policies and procedures are constantly changing to reduce the harm as well.
Also, iatrogenic diseases aren't actually whole new diseases, they're just ones that were caught during medical care. Considering hospitals are mainly populated by sick people and those with damaged or overtaxed immune systems, it should be unsurprising that this occurs occasionally; if anything IS surprising about it, its that it doesn't happen more often. We have the constantly evolving medical system to thank for that, they're constantly finding ways to reduce complications and infections.
@ArcanaKnight "Over 340,000 saved in 2000 from advances in treatment of coronary heart disease alone" Yes this is very good, however this is medicine similar to a mechanic fixing a car. The human being is generally guaranteed of health if following a pure diet good exercise & good air. I would say that many with heart issues have given over their responsibility for their own health to a belief in consumerism & a patch em up medical model
People are not machines, but have been turned into them.
@Kingfillins Yes, proper diet and exercise are ideal, that's why most doctors recommend it to their patients. The problem with that is that not everyone is going to follow through with that recommendation, so doctors have to be able to deal with the repercussions of that as well as the diseases that can't be fought off with healthy living alone. Is homeopathy any different? If so, what is so special about homeopathy that causes people to always eat healthy and exercise?
@ArcanaKnight This according to According to Richardson & Peacock in this regard "an increase in the doctor supply is associated with an increase in mortality".
"systemic evidence is surprisingly consistent. It implies an association between mortality and an increase in the doctor supply which is not easily attributed to reverse causation or to a spurious correlation with some other attribute of the population."
So you don't see any flaws in the Richardson and Peacock report? Can you list three other factors that were significant in mortality? (Hint: look at urbanization, population density, and Aboriginal population)
This report was a clear case of hypothesis seeking, which explains why it was never peer-reviewed. They would each have a new orifice if they had submitted this.
Please learn to be critical of your Internet sources.
@C0nc0rdance Your blind faith is admirable. This working paper is not free of flaws like any study, that is not the point and does not make it irrelevant. Hypothesis seeking to some degree is the whole point of a Hypotheses and is the flaw in many studies. Fixing is another thing. To prove or disprove, a fine line.
The issuet of peer review can be political. As with the climate change issue, scientists that contradict the mainstream loose funding etc.
Hypothesis seeking is when you choose an outcome in advance and search for data to support it. It's bad science.
Not submitting to peer review is a sign that an argument cannot pass critical examination, as in this case. The design flaws invalidate their findings.
I take nothing on faith except my family's love and the existence of bacon. You cited a paper you clearly have not read and understood. It was a univariate analysis of a multivariate correlation. That's not useful.
@C0nc0rdance@C0nc0rdance The underlying premise. You are asking questions you can answer for yourself, or have already answered in your preconceived formality.
"Hypothesis seeking is when you choose an outcome in advance and search for data to support it. It's bad science." Exactly, this is why we have so many crap pharmaceuticals on the market that do not do what they are supposed to and often cause harm.
@C0nc0rdance I sited a discussion document that has indicators these are useful and its findings are not diminished by you claiming that they intentionally mined data, this is your opinion.
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding....cont
@C0nc0rdance cont...Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong
@Kingfillins You don't appear to understand what goes into the peer review process. If a person believes that a hypothesis is nonsense, and wants to disprove it, then, if the hypothesis is correct, that person is it's best friend, because that is the one who is going to try hardest to find errors, and run the most trials in an attempt to find mismatched data. It's all about rerunning tests to see if you get the same results, and is perfect if everyone is honest about their results.
@ScttDynamite220 I am quoting Richard Horton the editor for The Lancet, on peer review. Are you suggesting he does not understand the process? He is rather skeptical of it.
@C0nc0rdance The underlying premise. You are asking questions you can answer for yourself, or have already answered in your preconceived formality.
"Hypothesis seeking is when you choose an outcome in advance and search for data to support it. It's bad science." Exactly, this is why we have so many crap pharmaceuticals on the market that do not do what they are supposed to and often cause harm.
@C0nc0rdance The underlying premise. You are asking questions you can answer for yourself, or have already answered in your preconceived formality.
"Hypothesis seeking is when you choose an outcome in advance and search for data to support it. It's bad science." Exactly, this is why we have so many crap pharmaceuticals on the market that do not do what they are supposed to and often cause harm.
@ArcanaKnight In other words you are suggesting analyzing and proving something using a set of principles that contradict the subject. So potentially such is relatively impossible.
And if the mainstream model is incorrect, generally and essentially misinterpreting human health it will be working against human health and any move by those who have a model that accurately addresses the principles of human health provision.
@Kingfillins There you go again assuming that a very large if has already been proven. Proving that the current theory of disease is incorrect would actually be a bigger hurdle than just proving the effectiveness of a new type of treatment.
Yours is just a familiar excuse given by proponents of most types of pseudoscience: it can't be tested or at least not tested using the methods whose results are the most reliable. Oddly, they ignore this "problem" if a test does show a positive result.
As I stated, these articles are full of factual misinformation. The AMA maintains a list of past presidents. None of them served for more than 2 years. Neither Simmons nor Fishbein were ever AMA Presidents.
There were major changes in medicine from 1880 to 1940. The progress of science and the scientific method gave us new information, and the median life expectancy at birth went from 38 to 66 in the US, the fastest increase in human history. How do you explain that?
Re: the article cited, Fishbein was never the President of the AMA as stated in the article. Neither was Simmons, of whom I find NO record.
Presidents at AMA are elected for a period of two years, and may not serve consecutive term, so when the author of the article tosses dates around, they have failed to do accurate research.
Please remember to be skeptical of Internet sources. Just because somebody wrote it in a blog doesn't make it accurate.
@ArcanaKnight Unless Homeopathics are tested taking into account different potencies, the studies are rather mute.
However even with the traditional dilutions, the undeniable fact is that millions of people are using Homeopathics successfully all over the world. In India, sometimes it is all that is used, so something is working. Maybe its placebo,
however my research and personal experience says otherwise.
How does homeopathy work? At the molecular level, what substance is in the water after it has been succussed? How long does it last? Why doesn't all water contain C30 of arsenic, duck liver, bee venom, CsCl, urine, sperm, and Jello-O brand gelatin?
You've used the fallacy of ad populum here. Just because lots of people do something does not make it effective. I can give a few hundred examples of really silly, useless things that lots of people do.
@ArcanaKnight The origins of the mainstream medical model are reason for concern and reason to question the motives of those now controlling it and trying to control other modalities.
It is beyond reason that tried and true natural treatments are not mandatory in all hospitals. China incorporates acupuncture with its mainstream med system. The west has a lot to learn, but it needs a willingness to do so.
Personally, before I buy a car, I want to see if actually run. Testing and evidence are important to me. This is even more true for the medical care I seek for my family. I apply the most rigorous standards of testing and evidence, I get the advice of a professional, and I'm constantly skeptical for flim-flam.
What conclusions are you drawing from the articles you cited? Womb cancer and neurological disease rates are up? What does that have to do with EBM?
So, when you see two numbers, one for homeopath hospitals, one for non-, what other differences can you imagine between these two settings?
I'll start you off: Number of patients. Number of health care people. Setting. Patient population composition. Severity of disease.
If you compare a crowded city hospital, full of the dying, to a rural rich hospital where the illness is less severe, that will also produce the same numbers.
@Kingfillins There is a reason why that study was published in a dedicated homeopath journal and not a mainstream one; there is no way you could get a study with such low sample size could get published in a mainstream journal. This is common practice with homeopaths; they will use ridiculously low numbers of subjects per cell and then tinker with the data to feather out a statistically significant effect.
@Kingfillins No, you asked if it had been replicated or if it was untrustworthy, and my response explained why it was untrustworthy. Because the results of the study were so unreliable, its unlikely that this study will ever be duplicated by non-homeopaths, and I doubt other homeopaths will ever duplicate it because they will assume the results are valid and ignore any of its flaws (I've already seen a few examples of the latter while researching the study)
The bigger issue here is that all the observations were subjective and qualitative calls. A simple real-time PCR test for de novo mutations or strand breakage would have been far more convincing, because it's not dependent on selective interpretation. Here, a homeopath-friendly technician counts events they see. They were not blinded, so the possibility of bias in observation is very high.
@ArcanaKnight "the fact that those studies which have shown positive results haven't been able to be replicated is the most telling part" What that the studies haven't been duplicated in some cases yet?
Until they are you suggest we bin Homeopathy. That's good science.
Like I said if you close your mind nothing is possible. One they thought brain cells stopped being produced in old age, now we find that happens if you stop using your intelligence. Keep your mind vital alive, not cynical & gray
@ArcanaKnight With all due respect, to be honest, I can see where your own logic is being ignored now because of your belief You are writing off Rick Simpson when you have the opportunity to recognise that he may well be onto something that seems to be helping a lot of people which begs more research but, for some reason you would rather say he exaggerates., and its just anecdote. The question is Does it work? Is so that is a good thing. No need for corporate profit margins.
@Kingfillins You're putting words into my mouth. I'm not writing Simpson off. In fact the link I gave specifically said that lab tests do show that marijuana MAY have anticancer properties and that it MAY reduce the risk of some types of cancer, but the science just isn't there yet to support the conclusions which many draw that it cures cancer which makes such claims irresponsible and unethical, and the claim that it can cure ANY disease is even more unfounded.
@Kingfillins You're putting words into my mouth. I'm not writing Simpson off. In fact the link I gave specifically said that lab tests do show that marijuana MAY have anticancer properties and that it MAY reduce the risk of some types of cancer, but the science just isn't there yet to support the conclusions which many draw that it cures cancer which makes such claims irresponsible and unethical, and the claim that it can cure ANY disease is even more unfounded.
@Kingfillins You're putting words into my mouth. I'm not writing Simpson off. In fact the link I gave specifically said that lab tests do show that marijuana MAY have anticancer properties and that it MAY reduce the risk of some types of cancer, but the science just isn't there yet to support the conclusions which many draw that it cures cancer which makes such claims irresponsible and unethical, and the claim that it can cure ANY disease is even more unfounded.
@ArcanaKnight DIS - EASE.. if small quantities of THC are ingested most people will become relaxed. This is why people use pot. It naturally treats dis-ease. This is the seat of many dis-eases not being at ease. Long periods of worry can literally lead to being "worried sick". Linked with bad diet etc, the body can start to express dysfunction in the mind at its physical equivalent
Why is Rick not having a team of researchers assigned to him etc? Because its illegal and free? or it doesnt work?
@Kingfillins No, people use pot because it makes them feel relaxed, and people use medical pot because it treats their symptoms, not the disease causing the symptoms (there is a big difference between the two).
It also isn't the worry itself that makes you sick, but the negative behavior associated with chronic worry that increases health risks:
@Kingfillins No, people use pot because it makes them feel relaxed, and people use medical pot because it treats their symptoms, not the disease causing the symptoms (there is a big difference between the two).
It also isn't the worry itself that makes you sick, but the negative behavior associated with chronic worry that increases health risks:
@Kingfillins "had great success with wives giving their husbands remedies secretly". That is anecdotal evidence and most likely just the experimenter effect.
"Homeopathics work by supporting your own inclination". That is essentially the same as saying, "if you believe they work, they work, and if you don't then they don't"; which again is something you never hear of aspirin.
Look, if a patient has been taking prescription drugs and they want them to work and they dont, they try some more, when nothing works the doctor says, sorry I cant help, so the patient goes and tries other things, when they do theres no difference in the belief, the hope in it working is still the same. It matters not what the medicine is, it matters if it works for the individual
@Kingfillins If a patient is taking prescription drugs and they don't work, it is because the diagnosis is wrong, not because the drug is ineffective; occasionally prescriptions for wrong diagnosis do still treat the problem, but that again is just the placebo effect at work. I also don't know of any real doctor that would say "sorry, I can't help" to a patient; they would (or at least should) instead figure out why its not working and come up with the correct diagnosis/prescription.
@ArcanaKnight Case in point Rick Simpson, his doctor tried everything he could think of before apparently saying "I cant help you". He tried Hemp Oil it worked. Now we have a THC breast cancer drug being developed.
@Kingfillins Rick doesn't keep records, so it all his evidence is anecdotal, and even he admits they were already doing research into the effects of marijuana on cancer (that's where he got the idea in the first place). There is more than a bit of exaggeration to his claims that it can cure any disease, and I don't really have room to get into it here, CONT
@ArcanaKnight If a practitioner in alt or mainstream medicine is irresponsible, that is not the modality, that is the mentality of that individual. There are bad calls in all fields of medicine. This does not make the modality incorrect. It is vital to know the limitations of any modality and act appropriately. To cherry pick the negative without recognising the positive is unbalanced.
How many people do receive relief and cure from Homeopathic treatment?
@Kingfillins It is also unbalanced to consider a poorly designed study that shows positive results to be equal to the results of a much better designed one which was negative. For homeopathy as well as other pseudosciences, it is pretty much without fail that the quality of the design of a study is inversely proportional to the measured effect.
I don't have space here to explain in detail what a scam MMS is and how big a fraud Humble is, so here is another debunking of MMS and Humble's false claims:
@ArcanaKnight Effects of homeopathic arsenic on tobacco plant resistance to tobacco mosaic virus.: Theoretical suggestions about system variability, based on a large experimental data set , siencedirect
@Kingfillins Did you get that study from Bandershot? I ask because he likes to point to such studies because it supposedly disproves the placebo effect. Of course, the problem with every such study I have been presented with is that they was so poorly designed or blinded that it is just varying combinations of confirmation bias, the experimenter effect, etc. One sure sign that this is the case is that it is published in a journal dedicated to alt-med quackery instead of a mainstream one.
@Kingfillins First, you do realize that meta analyses just look at the results of several studies, right? So, even if you want to ignore the conclusions of the metas, the studies they are based on still overwhelmingly show that homeopathy is no better than placebo.
Also, while there are problems with meta analyses, they can be corrected for; there are also several benefits to metas, which is why they are still conducted with the regularity they have.
May I suggest that you research the work of Jim Humble? He has conducted experiments to reduce radioactivity that contradict known laws of science.
To suggest that anecdotal evidence is "not enough to base any actual claims" is nonsensical. If you are sick and someones said "oh I had that illness and I tried this, and it worked" That is of immense value.
@Kingfillins Which question? Whether homeopathy has ever been shown to work less than placebos? Well yes, it has been less effective (and even more occasionally) than the placebo control in some tests, but it still performs within the placebo effect's range in any case.
You're using Humble as an example to show that anecdotes are reliable? He's a liar and a fraud, MMS can cause serious harm, and his "experiments" were designed to give the results he wanted.
You're WRONG when you say "modern homeopaths have no physical evidence for the mechanism underlying homeopathy." When we present this evidence to you, YOU RUN AWAY saying its "technobabble." NMR reveals the supramolecular structure of the homeopathic solution. The signal has been detected. Biochemical tests show its action. And unlike you, the workers who report this in the literature, real scientists, put their real names on their assertions. Can you do the same? Or will you just malign?
@100jurman That's not true, not for all hydrogen bonds. Google van der waal forces; clathrates; supramolecular chemistry. Clathrates are gas hydrates. They are foiling attempts to rechannel the Gulf oil gusher. They been observed since Sir Humphry Davy's time. I've heard this argument before from homeopathy denialists. Anyone can prove it by just Googling it. Read Roy's "Structure of Liquid Water" online.
@Homeosaurus Yet another fallacy, and an especially obvious one. You appear to be unable to differentiate causation and correlation. Perhaps a change in diet occurred 1907-1936? Perhaps the decrease in deaths from infectious disease, allowing people to die at older ages? Urbanization? Immigration?
The point is we can't conclude that because more people die of cancer that the cause is anything in particular until we have more data. You need to go back to critical thinking school.
Wow! So you're saying that because two events occurred in sequence, ONE MUST HAVE CAUSED THE OTHER! Causation = correlation?
Are you seriously suggesting that fewer people died when they failed to receive medical care? Doesn't anything in, say the distant past, or in regions without adequate medical care, belie that assertion?
I see we have some people incredibly convinced that because "conventional" or as I like to think of it - WORKING - medicine doesn't do anything, as soon as they try an alternative and something happens WOO, it works!
Sorry, medical science isn't based on "this guy in a pub said..."
The notion homoeopathy has any basis in science would essentially require us to just toss EVERYTHING we know about science out the window... and last time I checked, there weren't many homoeopathic cancer cures.
My son had severe eczema as a baby. The conventional treatment - hydrocortisone & antibiotics - caused all sorts of problems & gave no benefit. He had a classic response to homeopathy - rapidly worse then much better. We repeated this twice more & he got better at every step. That's one Hell of a placebo response - a 6 month old baby responding exactly as predicted. What's next? "Apples are no good. They're not orange & don't cure scurvy"
I have to admit, I've been tempted by homeopathy before. I just came out of a 5-month long dip in control of my asthma and I was feeling pretty desperate for something to stop the attacks. There were a few places I would pass on my way home claiming to be able to help asthmatics.
For an alternative view people should be referred to an open access paper in the Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 March; 3(1): 145147 to see how meta analysis papers can be biased. It is called Homeopathy and the Lancet. And it features tangentially the Prof. Ernst, not at its best. C0nc0rdance cites a paper in BJCO (Not your top tier paper) 2002.This kind of cheap attack kept until 2005. Good reading
A rather serious question, but what can one do to get this crap removed from a store? I happen to work at one...
0Krusnik0 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"To the best of my knowledge, there remains no refutations of Homeopathy that remain valid......"
Brian Josephson
Nobel Laureate Scientist (Physics - 1973)
mohanaturo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"....I will simply state that on this basis we now understand how quantities of
one millionth of a gram and less of a poison may be sufficient to paralyse or
annihilate an organism; the quantity of the catalysts required to be inactivated
in the poisoning of an organ is not greater than the quantity of poison used.
There is therefore nothing mystical in the homeopathic doses".
H A N S V O N E U L E R
Nobel Lecture, May 23rd 1930
mohanaturo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the late 1920's when many people thought that Homeopathy remedies had mystical effects, Nobel Laureate scientist Prof. Hans Von Euler conducted scientific tests to ascertain if Homeopathy had a scientific base.
mohanaturo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5 META ANALYSES showing positive results on Homeopathy:
1. Cucherat et al 2000* 16 Hi-Quality studies - POSITIVE.
2. Linde& Melchart 1998* 32 Hi-Quality studies - POSITIVE.
3. Linde et al 1997* 89 studies - POSITIVE.
4. Boissel et al 1996 15 Hi-Qt studies - POSITIVE.
5. Kleijnen et al 1991 105 studies - POSITIVE.
mohanaturo 5 months ago
Homeopathy offsets high levels of dulution with high levels of delusion.
TheCraziestFox 8 months ago
A homeopathy pseudo-doctor killed my friend a few years ago who had breast cancer. He had her drink an elixer and later told her that her cancer was dead.
Hereticbooks 1 year ago
I am actually going to make a video about why homeopathy is bullshit but I will not take a scientific approach but an economic one.
hobbitsarecool 1 year ago
if 80x is 1 molecule / 1 our universe, then wouldn't anything above that be impossible? also wouldn't that mean that a homeopathic pill of 100x means that u have to swallow something 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than the entire universe? im going to need a BIG glass of milk!
theshiznojudge 1 year ago
@theshiznojudge
I need to sit down and calculate the numbers, but I suppose every homeopathic solution is about a 10C solution of urine, feces, fishguts, chemical effluent, sawdust, human cadaver, and even ultra-pure water has a high level of chlorine, calcium, etc. on that scale.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 6
@theshiznojudge No, as far as I understand it they take the original mixture, take a small part of it and put it into a glass with water, than take a drop of that and put it into new water, etc.
Lolagoestohollywood 2 weeks ago
Maybe we need a Journal of Negative Results? A place where all failed experiments, hypotheses, trials, etc, etc can be published so that other researchers can learn from them. I'd probably be a prolific contributor!
mandolinic 1 year ago
Great video! Thanks for explaining how drug trials work and the lack of rigorous evidence for homeopathy. I always thought it was full of crap and now I know it!
turningofthetide1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@turningofthetide1 "Thanks for explaining how drug trials work and the lack of rigorous evidence for homeopathy. I always thought it was full of crap and now I know it!"
No, it's not even full of crap. It's only full of water ;-)
mandolinic 1 year ago
watch?v=-EiAuJ3f6QA
Kingfillins 1 year ago
"They say, the great thing about homeopathy is you can't overdose on it. Well you can fucking drown."
- Dara O'Briain
Aegidia01 1 year ago 25
C0nc0rdance The articles sited show that disease is growing. I suggest that sheeple have a strong sense that modern medicine will save them. There can be no bigger placebo than the mainstream medical system. The mistake many doctors make is that they "know what is best for a patient". Many interventions happen through bullying and misdiagnosis. But what the hell, he didn't need his tonsils anyway!
This is not to discredit the obvious benefits modern medicine offers.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
These are very broad, subjective arguments. Are there any objective facts to support that "Many interventions happen through bullying and misdiagnosis" or that mainstream medicine is a big placebo?
The articles describe increases in the last 10 years. Has something changed in medicine in the last 10 years that you think is causing an increase in womb cancer and celiac disease? Can you support that correlation with evidence?
I set the bar high for claims like yours.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
C0nc0rdance Human beings are not cars. They are not as the mainstream medical belief system has us, machines that can be fixed. People generally obviously fix themselves given the correct environment, medicine and conditions. To visit a modern hospital is more like going to a Mechanic's Garage than a place for worried and hurt human beings. Even something as basic and simple as the use of fluorescent lighting is questionable as such are not conducive to human health or well being.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
You've been a bit too literal in the analogy. I'm sorry you dislike hospital lighting and environment.
Humans can heal themselves. However, there are a number of things that humans cannot heal. We call them acute conditions. For examples, hypoxia, hypothermia, gangrene, acute pneumonia, multiple organ failure. There are no effective "alternative" treatments for these conditions.
I have nothing against holistic medicine, so long as we choose it based on evidence, not rhetoric.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
From the recent (2007) BMJ Survey: Of around 2500 (medical) treatments reviewed, 13% were rated as beneficial, 23% likely to be beneficial, 8% as trade off between benefits and harms, 6% unlikely to be beneficial, 4% likely to be ineffective or harmful, and 46%, the largest proportion, as unknown effectiveness.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins There is a deceptive assumption behind your claim, and that is that all these treatments are equal in terms of how common they are and how common the diseases and conditions for which each therapy is designed are. If that were true, you might have a point, but its not. This article discusses the failings of the argument you use:
ww w. sciencebasedmedicine. org/ ?p=3344
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
Homeopathic treatment gives relief to patients who are unable to get such from mainstream doctors. To hold up a bad call by Gloria Thomas father as evidence Homeopathy is "unjustified" is immature. If people are getting cured with Homeopathy, surely it IS WORKING. Surely it is justified. Even if it is purely placebo (which it is not) it still WORKS.
Shift your focus the deadly effects of pharmaceutical drugs for a reality check.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins Conventional medicine has side effects because anything that can cure a problem can cause a problem, and conversely you don't see any side effects from homeopathic treatments because it can't actually cure anything. Gloria Thomas's case was mainly used to counter claims of people saying "if its just water, then what harm could it do to just let people use it", not as evidence against its efficacy; the rest of the video discusses the evidence of its efficacy (or lack thereof).
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight
Conventional medicine can have side effects and offer no cure. This is because one drug my help one person and harm another, but our ridiculous health model has a one size fits all approach.
I have personally had side effects from using Homeopathy. So with all due respects, you are talking crap.
If using Homeopathy in a conventional manner it would be unlikely to have side effects.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
Your personal experiences are what are called an anecdote. They are the lowest form of evidence, below case study. When we apply a more rigorous experimental design, such as a randomized large population double blind control trial, no homeopathic treatment has EVER been demonstrated to work significantly better than placebo.
Even if we were to identify an anomalous result, there is no theory of homeopathy that could explain or predict the effects. It's just not science.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Anecdotal evidence is ONE of the most important stages in the development of many inventions. To suggest it has no substance is ridiculous.
Look at the Jim Humble MMS situation. Thousands of people are finding cure with MMS. With or without clinical trials.
There are many variables in a large scale trial. Without the propped application of Homeopathy the trial is worthless anyway. There are many remedy's, one size does not fit all.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins At best, anecdotal evidence is cause for further research, but it is certainly not enough to base any actual claims off of as so many alt-med practitioners try to do.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight One does not need to have a scientific study to know that drinking a six pack will get you drunk.Exactly the same with putting Alovera on a burn, or the myriad of herbs used all over the world with no scientific study but with ancient examples of their benefits. If you where in the Amazon jungle, you would have no western hospital or doctor, but the locals could cure your sickness with anecdotal tried and true natural remedies. Thats why the drug companies try patent these plants.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins We know that Alovera works on burns because of previous experimentation and testing. The same even goes for the pre-scientific cures of medicine men; they know it works because of trial-and-error experimentation, and the knowledge gained from that was passed down to the next generations.
You know what else both Alovera and the medicine men cures have in common? They work regardless of whether you believe they will or not; the same can't be said of homeopathy.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight All medicine works better if you believe in it. The mind alone can heal serious health conditions. It is however untrue that Aloevera works on all conditions and in fact may sometimes only potentially work via placebo.
Please provide evidence Jim Humble is a "liar and a fraud".
Exactly anecdote is not just a random event, it based on personal or group experience/experimentation. It is worthy of note and respect.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins Assuming you're right about medicine working better with belief, there's still a huge difference between saying something will work better if you believe in it, and saying something only works if you believe in it. Asprin has an effect whether you believe it will or not; while homeopathic treatments ONLY has an effect if you believe they will. That's why people can take a whole bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills without even getting a bit sleepy.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight Homeopathics work by supporting your own inclination, they do not force. Like I said I had homeopathic side effects and did not even know that such a thing could occur until after I researched the remedies indications and found it treats blurry vision and dizziness, I got these symptoms, in other words I proved the remedy unknowingly.
No I did not get it from bandershot.
One Homeopath I met had great success with wives giving their husbands remedies secretly.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins "had great success with wives giving their husbands remedies secretly". That is anecdotal evidence and most likely just the experimenter effect.
"Homeopathics work by supporting your own inclination". That is essentially the same as saying, "if you believe they work, they work, and if you don't then they don't"; which again is something you never hear of aspirin.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight They support and help re align your bodies natural pattern.
If one takes a prescription drug and it does not work it may well be that the drug does not work because its effectiveness has been ghostwritten and research findings falsified.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight Glaxo chief: Our drugs do not work on most patients
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
08 December 2003
A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.
Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight "It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by 2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of 7.2bn."
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins That is one reason why why we have multiple treatments for the same diseases/conditions. I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement in conventional medicine, but that is why we continue to do research to find more and better treatments. Besides, whatever the failings of conventional medicine, it doesn't change the (in)effectiveness of pseudo-scientific treatments like homeopathy..
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight Yeah and it doesn't change the continuing effectiveness of Homeopathy either. And that you or anyone else cant deny. That's the classic thing, you'd ban a treatment that actually helps people.
The issue is the "harm" right? Harm comes through blindly following any treatment including conventional, and not taking responsibility for ones own health, or that of others. Ones health is a state of being and feeling. If no improvement occurs then its not working. With or without science.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins There is a major difference between homeopathy and Simpson's hemp oil though which you are ignoring, namely that the research HAS been done on homeopathy, and it has been overwhelmingly negative.
No, the harm comes from believing in ineffective treatments, especially when it comes at the expense of delaying or forgoing entirely the effective treatments for easily treatable diseases, such as in Gloria's case.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight "believing in ineffective treatments", yet we know that people find cure with Homeopathy. Even you suggest it is as good a placebo, (which does show benefits). You cant allow yourself to recognise the benefits of Homeopathy yet you support a drug industry that in many instances is no better than placebo.
So the harm is not the belief in a system (this could be a cure) it is as I have already clearly pointed out, in a patients lack of personal responsibility, as with all modalities
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight What if we where to find that the level of dilution was the defining factor in Homeopathy. This would make most of the studies redundant, as most do not test the effect of different dilutions. There are many factors that are at play here. To suggest Homeopathy has been tested, and the case is over is ridiculous. There are many studies on high dilutions that have shown positive effects and have not been duplicated. Until such has been done you are jumping the gun.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
"What if we where to find that the level of dilution was the defining factor in Homeopathy". You're ignoring the key word there (if), and continuing on as if that had already been proven. Also, the fact that those studies which have shown positive results haven't been able to be replicated is the most telling part. I'm not the one jumping the gun by saying they're ineffective; if anything you're jumping it by saying that it is effective because FUTURE research MIGHT show it to be so.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight We know little about how the mind effects matter either. Can the outcome of a study be effected by the thoughts of those involved? Mind energy is a real force. It can effect the function of the human body as I have shown.
You seem to be creating simplistic boundaries.
As we broaden our minds we broaden the capabilities of science and technology, what was one science fiction becomes a reality. Impossible or possible? Real or imagined? They r only separated by thought and ego.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins That is nothing more than new age quackery trying to make excuses for why homeopathy keeps failing in scientific tests, particularly since the quality of design of the tests is inversely proportional to the likelyhood of it showing a positive result.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight There you go again. Did you read the mind controlling body temp article? By your definition this is "new age quackery" Yet it is right there. Mind over matter. You are missing my point, by holding to your fixations.
I am not making any excuses. I am pointing out that dilution may very well have its limitations. But that has not been the focus of study. Most studies test traditional dilution rates, such levels may be = to placebo, less dilution may prove to be higher.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins Of course dilution has its limitations, that much has been known for a long time, but it is in the opposite direction than you believe. The problem is that a main tenant of homeopathy is that the more dilute it is, the stronger it is, and proponents have maintained this belief even after the discovery of avagadro's number.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight Remember we are not simply dealing with dilution, succussion is an integral part of the preparation. What we see as being "stronger" is based on a physical model. Medicine will eventually recognise that our subtle body is where the health conditions begin and eventually are seen in the physical body, this being the most solid part of our energy body. Thought directly effect the energy body as does sound and colour frequency. This is why meditation is so powerful a tool in healing
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight Medicine is is its infancy because of greed.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
Besides, the reason why traditional dilutions are the focus of studies is because they are the ones most often prescribed. Even if you're right and it turns out they're effective at higher dilutions, it would still mean that the majority of current homeopathic cures are ineffective.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight The evidence suggests as good as placebo. It would be impossible using that study model, to differentiate the between the two. So if the dilution is most effective at a different dilution, we may simply be seeing a weaker effect, ie that of placebo.
(as a side considering placebo is the mind at play in healing, this alone calls into question the western model of medicine) Why not investigate and invest in figuring out how patients could increase the power of their mind to heal.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins "The evidence suggests as good as placebo." As good as placebo is the same as being ineffective; this is a point you don't seem to be getting, and is why we have placebo controlled trials in the first place. If there is no difference between whatever treatment you're promoting and a sugar pill, you're just taking advantage of people by charging them much more what is effectively nothing more than your brand of sugar pill.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight Placebo is effective, it is not the same as being "infective". It proves "mind over mater" is real.
But I have suggested that the Homeopathic may well be having a subtle effect at that particular dilution,(This then = placebo) and that this may be because it is not the optimum dilution which would show more effect.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins The placebo effect IS the same as being ineffective; it is basically the starting point for measuring effectiveness because EVERY treatment has it.
Yes, you have suggested that, but you don't have any actual evidence to back up that claim, so arguing that homeopathy is somehow effective based on that unproven hypothesis is not a valid argument for its current effectiveness.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight Yes there are failings in all human endeavor, that is one of the basic fundamental issues of our experience and why we are constantly evolving our understanding of existence. This article is a pointer and is useful.
I am offering what I do for discussion. To suggest there is "no evidence" to support it is incorrect and is missing the point of my discourse, thesis and science in general.
That article suffers from the same disease as anyone using science
socio-politically.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight Science is not a weapon. The point is, mainstream medicine is limited and out of step because it is based on corporate profits. In ancient China, one payed the doctor to keep one well, if you got sick the doctor payed you. To base a health system on the sick is an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
Why? Because it is patching up the sickness caused by the other corporations selling junk food lifestyles, a sicko cycle of products, dis-ease, lies and profit.
It needs no defense.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins I agree that there is certainly room for improvement in medicine, but we aren't going to get anywhere by promoting treatment methods like homeopathy that have been proven to be ineffective. And again, the failings of conventional medicine doesn't make homeopathy more effective.
You're getting off topic. Anti-corporatism is fine and a perfectly debatable sentiment, but it really has no affect on the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, so would be best to leave for a different forum.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight The reality of corporate influence on our society effects all topics and is relevant here. My point re mainstream meds is that they use a model of health that is lacking. Yes it can be improved, but it is the model that is held above more natural treatments and is supposedly the gold standard in scientific achievement, that it is evidence based etc.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight This is partly an illusion to sell product, in a similar way Homeopathy is criticized, yet the attack is on natural treatments that IF USED CORRECTLY are usually harmless.
As I have pointed out Homeopath still requires further study. The quantity of studies that do show it is effective cannot be dismissed via meta analysis, rather through replication. Science is not speculation. To bring a study into question begs replication, not disqualification.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins "If used correctly"...Why qualify it like that? It is ALWAYS harmless because it is just water. There are numerous examples of people purposefully using it incorrectly (such as taking an entire bottle of homeopathic pills to prove ineffectiveness), and not being effected at all.
If you want it to be taken seriously, the "further study" needs to involve well designed and conducted, randomized trials with sufficient sample size that show a statistically significant effect.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight "the attack is on natural treatments that IF USED CORRECTLY are usually harmless." I was talking about Alt meds in general
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight The first officially registered study of the effectiveness of homeopathy was conducted in the 19th century when an epidemic of cholera broke out in the 1850s. When the mortality from cholera in London hospitals was announced in the Parliament, information from homeopathic hospitals was not included. One of the members of Parliament insisted on obtaining information from homeopathic hospitals.....
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight cont....Due to his intervention, information about the enormous benefits of homeopathy in the treatment of cholera was presented. According to data from the homeopathic hospital of London, the mortality rate of patients suffering from cholera was 16,4% while in all other hospitals it was 51,8%.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins It should be noted that at the time, nobody could actually treat cholera, and while medical treatments such as blood-letting were actively harmful, the homoeopaths’ treatments were at least inert.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight However the figures are significantly better for the Homeopathic hospitals. 16% to 50% So the non Homeopaths actively just killed off their patents.
Was the usual mortality rate in such hospitals that high? Surely on administering a treatment repeatedly doctors would have observed what made improvements to a patent and what did not. And would discontinue those interventions that failed.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins Yes, I actually said as much; some of the treatments used at the time were actually harmful. Those treatments were based off an old theory of disease (which we not know was incorrect), and it was believed that any treatment was better than no treatment; occasionally they would even see a beneficial effect (which we now know was usually just the placebo effect).
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
You also have to remember that evidence-based medicine is still a relatively new concept, and sadly is something that is still not universally applied to this day. Dr. Druin Burch's book Taking the Medicine about the history of medicine discusses rather well the failings of using personal experience/beliefs to determine treatment instead of basing treatments on valid scientific evidence. The situation is getting better all the time, but there is still room for improvement.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight
The current model and mainstream attitude to alternatives was never by accident.
hubpages .c om/hub/Health--Inc-How-Modern-Medicine-Became-a-Monopoly
Like I have pointed to the benefits of scientific testing is studying specific isolations. However nature is not isolated, so science can be limited. Science can also prove two opposing thesis correct.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
I suggest you seek a more neutral account of the Flexner report and the emergence of modern medicine. The tone here was far from objective: "both of these men were petty, vindictive and corrupt" and a few points were factually false.
Fishbein, for example, campaigned against charlatans, and advocated greater control over medical devices, so that snake oil remedies couldn't be sold as cures for cancer unless they had actually proven their claims. Hardly petty and vindictive!
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance ww w . naturalnews. c om/023195.html
Reed between the lines.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins Is that supposed to be a neutral source? I've actually spoken with Ullman before, and I was disappointed to see find he uses the same fallacious arguments as other homeopathy proponents. That article was based on an exerpt from one of Ullman's books (which is nothing but the appeal to celebrity fallacy) in which he makes several bogus claims about historical figures.
ww w. quackometer. net /blog/2007/12/homeopathic-revolution-by-dana-ullman. html
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcanaKnight Is that supposed to be a neutral source?
I posted that source as it is more accurate in terms of the culprits "positions" in the AMA.
May I suggest that you might entertain the fact that their is reason to reject more "Alternative" medical interventions, beyond the need for "evidence" via scientific study and therefore approval by the FDA, AMA and such like.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight In other words is it possible that such a massive industry would or could allow a contradictory model of health to be given any mainstream creditability and thus call into question its beliefs and practices?
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins So, that was the point of posting the last article? How is that reading between the lines? The article explicitly tried to make that point.
But to answer your question, yes. If they could prove effectiveness, especially if they could explain exactly how it supposedly works, I think that it would eventually be accepted.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight OK, so how is it possible for a medical modality that recognises a different model of human health, pathology and physiology and therefore one that cannot necessarily be tested using the mainstream methods of analysis?
ie "The Human organism functions as an elaborate physico-chemical complex, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry". If this was not true, how would one study such, as the laws of physics and chemistry (the basic model of mainstream analysis) would not apply?
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins Well, first you would need to prove that the old model is incorrect and that yours is correct which, as I said, would be no small task. Then, they would have to find a way of testing their modality's effectiveness based on this newly proven theory.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight It seems clear the old model proves its self incorrect by its own assumptions about the human being. ie Symptoms of disease is the disease.
It is fundamentally scientifically incorrect to say cancer, AIDS, arthritis, influenza, etc., are diseases. They are not diseases at all, but symptoms of the disease process.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins That is actually not proof, its just your opinion, and not even one based on evidence or a basic understanding of the germ theory of disease.
You're partially right, it would be incorrect that some of those are diseases (some are actually conditions or disorders). You do realize that not everything that goes wrong with our health is classified as a disease, right?
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight Yes I am addressing the topic of "disease". However the same applies to other areas also.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins Okay... You're still a long way from disproving the current theory of disease, let alone proving your alternative hypothesis.
Your arguments are just getting broader and more nebulous as you go. Are you hoping that eventually you'll say something that is factually correct or at least agreeable simply due to the fact that it is so general and vague?
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight As I said it disproves itself.
Modern scientific medicine has created a phenomenal world wide dependence upon pharmaceutical drugs which has resulted in the emergence of a brand new epidemic of diseases called iatrogenic diseases. It is this epidemic of iatrogenic diseases which is claimed to be largely responsible for the correlation between increased numbers of doctors and increased mortality.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins Your argument is again based on a fallacy. Focusing only on the harm ignores all the lives saved by it and a number of other factors. Medicine may kill a few tens of thousand a year, but it also saves hundreds of thousands (over 340,000 saved in 2000 from advances in treatment of coronary heart disease alone). Policies and procedures are constantly changing to reduce the harm as well.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
Also, iatrogenic diseases aren't actually whole new diseases, they're just ones that were caught during medical care. Considering hospitals are mainly populated by sick people and those with damaged or overtaxed immune systems, it should be unsurprising that this occurs occasionally; if anything IS surprising about it, its that it doesn't happen more often. We have the constantly evolving medical system to thank for that, they're constantly finding ways to reduce complications and infections.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight "Over 340,000 saved in 2000 from advances in treatment of coronary heart disease alone" Yes this is very good, however this is medicine similar to a mechanic fixing a car. The human being is generally guaranteed of health if following a pure diet good exercise & good air. I would say that many with heart issues have given over their responsibility for their own health to a belief in consumerism & a patch em up medical model
People are not machines, but have been turned into them.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins Yes, proper diet and exercise are ideal, that's why most doctors recommend it to their patients. The problem with that is that not everyone is going to follow through with that recommendation, so doctors have to be able to deal with the repercussions of that as well as the diseases that can't be fought off with healthy living alone. Is homeopathy any different? If so, what is so special about homeopathy that causes people to always eat healthy and exercise?
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight This according to According to Richardson & Peacock in this regard "an increase in the doctor supply is associated with an increase in mortality".
"systemic evidence is surprisingly consistent. It implies an association between mortality and an increase in the doctor supply which is not easily attributed to reverse causation or to a spurious correlation with some other attribute of the population."
Interesting stuff.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
So you don't see any flaws in the Richardson and Peacock report? Can you list three other factors that were significant in mortality? (Hint: look at urbanization, population density, and Aboriginal population)
This report was a clear case of hypothesis seeking, which explains why it was never peer-reviewed. They would each have a new orifice if they had submitted this.
Please learn to be critical of your Internet sources.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Your blind faith is admirable. This working paper is not free of flaws like any study, that is not the point and does not make it irrelevant. Hypothesis seeking to some degree is the whole point of a Hypotheses and is the flaw in many studies. Fixing is another thing. To prove or disprove, a fine line.
The issuet of peer review can be political. As with the climate change issue, scientists that contradict the mainstream loose funding etc.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
Hypothesis seeking is when you choose an outcome in advance and search for data to support it. It's bad science.
Not submitting to peer review is a sign that an argument cannot pass critical examination, as in this case. The design flaws invalidate their findings.
I take nothing on faith except my family's love and the existence of bacon. You cited a paper you clearly have not read and understood. It was a univariate analysis of a multivariate correlation. That's not useful.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance @C0nc0rdance The underlying premise. You are asking questions you can answer for yourself, or have already answered in your preconceived formality.
"Hypothesis seeking is when you choose an outcome in advance and search for data to support it. It's bad science." Exactly, this is why we have so many crap pharmaceuticals on the market that do not do what they are supposed to and often cause harm.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance I sited a discussion document that has indicators these are useful and its findings are not diminished by you claiming that they intentionally mined data, this is your opinion.
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding....cont
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance cont...Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins You don't appear to understand what goes into the peer review process. If a person believes that a hypothesis is nonsense, and wants to disprove it, then, if the hypothesis is correct, that person is it's best friend, because that is the one who is going to try hardest to find errors, and run the most trials in an attempt to find mismatched data. It's all about rerunning tests to see if you get the same results, and is perfect if everyone is honest about their results.
ScttDynamite220 1 year ago
@ScttDynamite220 I am quoting Richard Horton the editor for The Lancet, on peer review. Are you suggesting he does not understand the process? He is rather skeptical of it.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins " the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete,......"
It sounds as flawed as Democracy: i.e. the worst possible system -- except for all the others.
mandolinic 1 year ago 2
@mandolinic Yeah...
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
You suggest I need to be more critical, however with all due respect, I think you need to take your own advice.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
Sure. What points that I have advanced do I need to be more critical of?
I've asked eight questions of fact so far. You have answered none of them. Are you unwilling or unable, or did you simply miss them?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance The underlying premise. You are asking questions you can answer for yourself, or have already answered in your preconceived formality.
"Hypothesis seeking is when you choose an outcome in advance and search for data to support it. It's bad science." Exactly, this is why we have so many crap pharmaceuticals on the market that do not do what they are supposed to and often cause harm.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance The underlying premise. You are asking questions you can answer for yourself, or have already answered in your preconceived formality.
"Hypothesis seeking is when you choose an outcome in advance and search for data to support it. It's bad science." Exactly, this is why we have so many crap pharmaceuticals on the market that do not do what they are supposed to and often cause harm.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight In other words you are suggesting analyzing and proving something using a set of principles that contradict the subject. So potentially such is relatively impossible.
And if the mainstream model is incorrect, generally and essentially misinterpreting human health it will be working against human health and any move by those who have a model that accurately addresses the principles of human health provision.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins There you go again assuming that a very large if has already been proven. Proving that the current theory of disease is incorrect would actually be a bigger hurdle than just proving the effectiveness of a new type of treatment.
Yours is just a familiar excuse given by proponents of most types of pseudoscience: it can't be tested or at least not tested using the methods whose results are the most reliable. Oddly, they ignore this "problem" if a test does show a positive result.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
As I stated, these articles are full of factual misinformation. The AMA maintains a list of past presidents. None of them served for more than 2 years. Neither Simmons nor Fishbein were ever AMA Presidents.
There were major changes in medicine from 1880 to 1940. The progress of science and the scientific method gave us new information, and the median life expectancy at birth went from 38 to 66 in the US, the fastest increase in human history. How do you explain that?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance Some interesting studies...
"Homeopathic treatment of Arabidopsis thaliana plants infected with Pseudomonas syringae."
Baumgartner ScientificWorldJournal. 2009 May 20;9:320-30.
"The Efficacy of Ultramolecular Aqueous Dilutions on a Wheat Germination Model as a Function of Heat and Aging-Time" Brizzi
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
Re: the article cited, Fishbein was never the President of the AMA as stated in the article. Neither was Simmons, of whom I find NO record.
Presidents at AMA are elected for a period of two years, and may not serve consecutive term, so when the author of the article tosses dates around, they have failed to do accurate research.
Please remember to be skeptical of Internet sources. Just because somebody wrote it in a blog doesn't make it accurate.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight Unless Homeopathics are tested taking into account different potencies, the studies are rather mute.
However even with the traditional dilutions, the undeniable fact is that millions of people are using Homeopathics successfully all over the world. In India, sometimes it is all that is used, so something is working. Maybe its placebo,
however my research and personal experience says otherwise.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
How does homeopathy work? At the molecular level, what substance is in the water after it has been succussed? How long does it last? Why doesn't all water contain C30 of arsenic, duck liver, bee venom, CsCl, urine, sperm, and Jello-O brand gelatin?
You've used the fallacy of ad populum here. Just because lots of people do something does not make it effective. I can give a few hundred examples of really silly, useless things that lots of people do.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight The origins of the mainstream medical model are reason for concern and reason to question the motives of those now controlling it and trying to control other modalities.
It is beyond reason that tried and true natural treatments are not mandatory in all hospitals. China incorporates acupuncture with its mainstream med system. The west has a lot to learn, but it needs a willingness to do so.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
This is called the genetic fallacy. It's where you base your argument on the origins of something rather than its current state.
Would you say that health and longevity are increasing or decreasing in the years that modern medicine has supplanted alternative medicine?
Is it more important to you that a treatment actually works, or just that it makes you feel better? Are you okay paying 120 USD for a placebo?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
C0nc0rdance Modern medicine has its place But its place needs to be identified, not blindly followed.
See reasonable alternative view on Health statistics.
w w w . holistic healthtopics . com/HMG/trends.html
w w w . medicalnewstoday. c om/articles/192517.php
h tt p: / / discoverysedge . mayo.edu/celiac-disease/
info . cancerresearchuk . org /news/archive/pressrelease/wom-cancer-cases-highest-for-three-decades-2010-22-07
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
Personally, before I buy a car, I want to see if actually run. Testing and evidence are important to me. This is even more true for the medical care I seek for my family. I apply the most rigorous standards of testing and evidence, I get the advice of a professional, and I'm constantly skeptical for flim-flam.
What conclusions are you drawing from the articles you cited? Womb cancer and neurological disease rates are up? What does that have to do with EBM?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
So, when you see two numbers, one for homeopath hospitals, one for non-, what other differences can you imagine between these two settings?
I'll start you off: Number of patients. Number of health care people. Setting. Patient population composition. Severity of disease.
If you compare a crowded city hospital, full of the dying, to a rural rich hospital where the illness is less severe, that will also produce the same numbers.
Can you cite the source article?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight Please see... (have these studies been replicated? Are they untrustworthy?)
Assessment of Cytogenetic Damage in X-irradiated Mice and its Alteration by Oral Administration of Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Ginseng D200,
"Alteration of Cytogenetic Effects by Oral Administration of Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Ruta graveolens in Mice Exposed to Sub-lethal X-radiation,"
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins There is a reason why that study was published in a dedicated homeopath journal and not a mainstream one; there is no way you could get a study with such low sample size could get published in a mainstream journal. This is common practice with homeopaths; they will use ridiculously low numbers of subjects per cell and then tinker with the data to feather out a statistically significant effect.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight The question was had the study been duplicated, on a larger scale preferably?
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins No, you asked if it had been replicated or if it was untrustworthy, and my response explained why it was untrustworthy. Because the results of the study were so unreliable, its unlikely that this study will ever be duplicated by non-homeopaths, and I doubt other homeopaths will ever duplicate it because they will assume the results are valid and ignore any of its flaws (I've already seen a few examples of the latter while researching the study)
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight
The bigger issue here is that all the observations were subjective and qualitative calls. A simple real-time PCR test for de novo mutations or strand breakage would have been far more convincing, because it's not dependent on selective interpretation. Here, a homeopath-friendly technician counts events they see. They were not blinded, so the possibility of bias in observation is very high.
I see the same thing in my grad students.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight ....because there is no money in people healing themselves. Note the correlation of study to the model. Both are centered on profit.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight "the fact that those studies which have shown positive results haven't been able to be replicated is the most telling part" What that the studies haven't been duplicated in some cases yet?
Until they are you suggest we bin Homeopathy. That's good science.
Like I said if you close your mind nothing is possible. One they thought brain cells stopped being produced in old age, now we find that happens if you stop using your intelligence. Keep your mind vital alive, not cynical & gray
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight With all due respect, to be honest, I can see where your own logic is being ignored now because of your belief You are writing off Rick Simpson when you have the opportunity to recognise that he may well be onto something that seems to be helping a lot of people which begs more research but, for some reason you would rather say he exaggerates., and its just anecdote. The question is Does it work? Is so that is a good thing. No need for corporate profit margins.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins You're putting words into my mouth. I'm not writing Simpson off. In fact the link I gave specifically said that lab tests do show that marijuana MAY have anticancer properties and that it MAY reduce the risk of some types of cancer, but the science just isn't there yet to support the conclusions which many draw that it cures cancer which makes such claims irresponsible and unethical, and the claim that it can cure ANY disease is even more unfounded.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kingfillins You're putting words into my mouth. I'm not writing Simpson off. In fact the link I gave specifically said that lab tests do show that marijuana MAY have anticancer properties and that it MAY reduce the risk of some types of cancer, but the science just isn't there yet to support the conclusions which many draw that it cures cancer which makes such claims irresponsible and unethical, and the claim that it can cure ANY disease is even more unfounded.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kingfillins You're putting words into my mouth. I'm not writing Simpson off. In fact the link I gave specifically said that lab tests do show that marijuana MAY have anticancer properties and that it MAY reduce the risk of some types of cancer, but the science just isn't there yet to support the conclusions which many draw that it cures cancer which makes such claims irresponsible and unethical, and the claim that it can cure ANY disease is even more unfounded.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight DIS - EASE.. if small quantities of THC are ingested most people will become relaxed. This is why people use pot. It naturally treats dis-ease. This is the seat of many dis-eases not being at ease. Long periods of worry can literally lead to being "worried sick". Linked with bad diet etc, the body can start to express dysfunction in the mind at its physical equivalent
Why is Rick not having a team of researchers assigned to him etc? Because its illegal and free? or it doesnt work?
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins No, people use pot because it makes them feel relaxed, and people use medical pot because it treats their symptoms, not the disease causing the symptoms (there is a big difference between the two).
It also isn't the worry itself that makes you sick, but the negative behavior associated with chronic worry that increases health risks:
ww w. companionsinhope. com/ TLC/ worry.pdf
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kingfillins No, people use pot because it makes them feel relaxed, and people use medical pot because it treats their symptoms, not the disease causing the symptoms (there is a big difference between the two).
It also isn't the worry itself that makes you sick, but the negative behavior associated with chronic worry that increases health risks:
ww w. companionsinhope. com/ TLC/ worry.pdf
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kingfillins "had great success with wives giving their husbands remedies secretly". That is anecdotal evidence and most likely just the experimenter effect.
"Homeopathics work by supporting your own inclination". That is essentially the same as saying, "if you believe they work, they work, and if you don't then they don't"; which again is something you never hear of aspirin.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight See Meditation changes temperatures:
Mind controls body in extreme experiments
William J. Cromie
Look, if a patient has been taking prescription drugs and they want them to work and they dont, they try some more, when nothing works the doctor says, sorry I cant help, so the patient goes and tries other things, when they do theres no difference in the belief, the hope in it working is still the same. It matters not what the medicine is, it matters if it works for the individual
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins If a patient is taking prescription drugs and they don't work, it is because the diagnosis is wrong, not because the drug is ineffective; occasionally prescriptions for wrong diagnosis do still treat the problem, but that again is just the placebo effect at work. I also don't know of any real doctor that would say "sorry, I can't help" to a patient; they would (or at least should) instead figure out why its not working and come up with the correct diagnosis/prescription.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight Case in point Rick Simpson, his doctor tried everything he could think of before apparently saying "I cant help you". He tried Hemp Oil it worked. Now we have a THC breast cancer drug being developed.
Interesting stuff.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins Rick doesn't keep records, so it all his evidence is anecdotal, and even he admits they were already doing research into the effects of marijuana on cancer (that's where he got the idea in the first place). There is more than a bit of exaggeration to his claims that it can cure any disease, and I don't really have room to get into it here, CONT
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight so here is a well reasoned post I came across that explains my position on the subject fairly well:
michiganmedicalmarijuana. org/ topic/ 17457-run-from-the-cure-how-cannabis-cures-cancer-and-why-no-one-knows/ page__view__findpost__p__153466?s=3eb3816f47466c74cbdf027fbd2c658f
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight If a practitioner in alt or mainstream medicine is irresponsible, that is not the modality, that is the mentality of that individual. There are bad calls in all fields of medicine. This does not make the modality incorrect. It is vital to know the limitations of any modality and act appropriately. To cherry pick the negative without recognising the positive is unbalanced.
How many people do receive relief and cure from Homeopathic treatment?
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins It is also unbalanced to consider a poorly designed study that shows positive results to be equal to the results of a much better designed one which was negative. For homeopathy as well as other pseudosciences, it is pretty much without fail that the quality of the design of a study is inversely proportional to the measured effect.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't have space here to explain in detail what a scam MMS is and how big a fraud Humble is, so here is another debunking of MMS and Humble's false claims:
sites .go ogle. com/ site/ mmsdebunked/ home/ mms-scam
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight Effects of homeopathic arsenic on tobacco plant resistance to tobacco mosaic virus.: Theoretical suggestions about system variability, based on a large experimental data set , siencedirect
An interesting study that I was shown today.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins Did you get that study from Bandershot? I ask because he likes to point to such studies because it supposedly disproves the placebo effect. Of course, the problem with every such study I have been presented with is that they was so poorly designed or blinded that it is just varying combinations of confirmation bias, the experimenter effect, etc. One sure sign that this is the case is that it is published in a journal dedicated to alt-med quackery instead of a mainstream one.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance The evidence against Homeopathy is largely via Meta Analysis. The proses of meta analysis is prone to known failings.
Question. Has Homeopathy been shown to work less than placebo?
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins First, you do realize that meta analyses just look at the results of several studies, right? So, even if you want to ignore the conclusions of the metas, the studies they are based on still overwhelmingly show that homeopathy is no better than placebo.
Also, while there are problems with meta analyses, they can be corrected for; there are also several benefits to metas, which is why they are still conducted with the regularity they have.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
@ArcanaKnight They are often used politically.
May I suggest that you research the work of Jim Humble? He has conducted experiments to reduce radioactivity that contradict known laws of science.
To suggest that anecdotal evidence is "not enough to base any actual claims" is nonsensical. If you are sick and someones said "oh I had that illness and I tried this, and it worked" That is of immense value.
Also you did not answer my question.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins Which question? Whether homeopathy has ever been shown to work less than placebos? Well yes, it has been less effective (and even more occasionally) than the placebo control in some tests, but it still performs within the placebo effect's range in any case.
You're using Humble as an example to show that anecdotes are reliable? He's a liar and a fraud, MMS can cause serious harm, and his "experiments" were designed to give the results he wanted.
ArcanaKnight 1 year ago
You're WRONG when you say "modern homeopaths have no physical evidence for the mechanism underlying homeopathy." When we present this evidence to you, YOU RUN AWAY saying its "technobabble." NMR reveals the supramolecular structure of the homeopathic solution. The signal has been detected. Biochemical tests show its action. And unlike you, the workers who report this in the literature, real scientists, put their real names on their assertions. Can you do the same? Or will you just malign?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
But the longest-lived noncovalent structures in liquid water at room temperature are only stable for a few picoseconds
Source: Teixeira J, Luzar A, Longeville S (2006), "Dynamics of hydrogen bonds: how to probe their role in the unusual properties of liquid water"
100jurman 1 year ago
@100jurman That's not true, not for all hydrogen bonds. Google van der waal forces; clathrates; supramolecular chemistry. Clathrates are gas hydrates. They are foiling attempts to rechannel the Gulf oil gusher. They been observed since Sir Humphry Davy's time. I've heard this argument before from homeopathy denialists. Anyone can prove it by just Googling it. Read Roy's "Structure of Liquid Water" online.
Bandershot 1 year ago
Awesome video. Everyone should watch this, especially people who think there might be something to homeopathy.
OutlawGrrl 1 year ago
@Homeosaurus Yet another fallacy, and an especially obvious one. You appear to be unable to differentiate causation and correlation. Perhaps a change in diet occurred 1907-1936? Perhaps the decrease in deaths from infectious disease, allowing people to die at older ages? Urbanization? Immigration?
The point is we can't conclude that because more people die of cancer that the cause is anything in particular until we have more data. You need to go back to critical thinking school.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 4
@Homeosaurus
Wow! So you're saying that because two events occurred in sequence, ONE MUST HAVE CAUSED THE OTHER! Causation = correlation?
Are you seriously suggesting that fewer people died when they failed to receive medical care? Doesn't anything in, say the distant past, or in regions without adequate medical care, belie that assertion?
Please, stick to logic, reason and evidence.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 4
We live in the 21th century and yet this crap continues to exist.
Armando51roosters 1 year ago
Good work!
tomaselvis 1 year ago
Who ever the 2 people who voted this video down: go fuck yourselves, you insane stupid douche bags.
I'm sorry that logic, science, and morality is too difficult for you to grasp.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago 3
the bottom line, homeopathy doesn't work. period!
emancoy 1 year ago
I see we have some people incredibly convinced that because "conventional" or as I like to think of it - WORKING - medicine doesn't do anything, as soon as they try an alternative and something happens WOO, it works!
Sorry, medical science isn't based on "this guy in a pub said..."
The notion homoeopathy has any basis in science would essentially require us to just toss EVERYTHING we know about science out the window... and last time I checked, there weren't many homoeopathic cancer cures.
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago 2
My son had severe eczema as a baby. The conventional treatment - hydrocortisone & antibiotics - caused all sorts of problems & gave no benefit. He had a classic response to homeopathy - rapidly worse then much better. We repeated this twice more & he got better at every step. That's one Hell of a placebo response - a 6 month old baby responding exactly as predicted. What's next? "Apples are no good. They're not orange & don't cure scurvy"
BoneySkylord 1 year ago
C0nc0rdance strikes again. Fantastic work dude, keep it up!! Thanks!!
esantipapa 1 year ago
I have to admit, I've been tempted by homeopathy before. I just came out of a 5-month long dip in control of my asthma and I was feeling pretty desperate for something to stop the attacks. There were a few places I would pass on my way home claiming to be able to help asthmatics.
tammyscotland 1 year ago
Thank you for another great video. I hope you can help people to use reason, logic and scientific understanding when they resort to healthcare
twinkazz 1 year ago
For an alternative view people should be referred to an open access paper in the Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 March; 3(1): 145147 to see how meta analysis papers can be biased. It is called Homeopathy and the Lancet. And it features tangentially the Prof. Ernst, not at its best. C0nc0rdance cites a paper in BJCO (Not your top tier paper) 2002.This kind of cheap attack kept until 2005. Good reading