@politicomdk It's not just newsletters... it's magazines, journal articles, news articles, etc. Though, I would suggest the Skeptic newsletter if you are interested in that sort of thing.
When I was 11 I was saved by homeopath/MD. He cured me of tuberculosis using homeopathy, after another MD almost killed me (I was literally on my deathbed). I didn't know about the placebo effect at that time, but now, 20 years later, I'm still alive and I think if there was any placebo effect it would have worn out by now!
@pkkda Correlation is not causation. Though, I am glad you are alive! It's odd though that you would be on your deathbed from treatment... it's not some new thing. Curing TB is not really a problem with normal medical treatment.
@zakiechan You and others of your disposition could continue to take the drugs approved by the FDA, many of which are later taken off the market because they are harmful or ineffective. That tells something of the FDA's approval process!! You appear to be ignorant of the term 'iatrogenesis' - that's what almost sent be to my deathbed. I'll stick with the placebo effect of homeopathy, thanks.
@zakiechan My uncle (MD) had a greater correlation curing diseases with homeopathic than with allopathic medication, and therefore his choice was to mostly use the former. Correlation is not causation, but let's be pragmatic about it.
@pkkda If you want to be pragmatic, you have to toss homeopathy. Look at all the studies that show it doesn't work. What is more likely, that your uncle is wrong, or that all the studies are wrong?
@zakiechan All the studies? What studies are you referring to? Who were the studies paid by? Google “Nobel Scientist Discovers Scientific Basis of Homeopathy” & in general do some other research to discover alternatives to your views. What scientific basis does mainstream medicine have? None for immunizations; none for their cancer “cures”, etc. Their drugs are taken off the market regularly due to their ineffectiveness & harmful side effects. Does homeopathy have any less credibility?
@pkkda Well, for starters, there are 20 studies linked in the video info. I have done quite a bit of research into homeopathy and alt medicine. The fact that you aren't aware that studies showing homeopathy to be nonsense exist tells me that you haven't taken your own advice. Also, are you not aware that Montagnier's research has been thoroughly discredited? However, even if true, they don't support any of homeopathy's basic tenets (read the actual research)
You should've gone over some of the quotes to your links, data, analysis or studies within the actual video. You come off as more knowledgeable on the subject if you're able to successfully communicate the information from the studies to people within your video.
Thanks ihr, I am happy to report that since trying this ny leg has actually fallen off and I am now able to hop much further due to my reduction in weight. So unbelievers, it really does work!
I have it on good authority that elphant dung ingested in small quantities (but only at midnight on the third day of the waning moon) can cure my broken leg. I am so happy to hear this. Where can I get some elephant dung capsules?
@plutonium837 Well what I'd suggest as a professional homeopath is to talk to your local pharmacist about ingesting water, I mean dung tablets. Then you should go straight to your doctor and have your leg put in a cast. What this does it keeps the cells (energies) in your leg bone static so that the water, I mean dung, can do it's job of something something crystal mesopholiptic antigenerationalization. That way the leg key in your body will meet with the unbreak key.
NASDAQ held a ceremony on December 29th at the closing bell to honor the opening of the American Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix next month. " Welcome AMCH" flashed across the NASDAQ tower in blue neon lights several floors tall. Lit up the sky!
@den151redbank Well, as long as we are talking about things that have zero relevance to the truth or falsity of homeopathy... I am turning 28 next Friday (on the 28th, golden bday!). A bunch of my friends are coming over and we are having a big party. I am really looking forward to it, and it is going to be a blast! The next day, we might take my friend's RV to the coast for the day. RV trips are always super fun! Needless to say, I am really looking forward to next weekend!
Don't know much about it, and never tried it. No worries. :)
Just a couple points. In Canada, most doctors actually are paid by the government. That might explain why Canadians don't go bankrupt because of healthcare and live longer than US citizens.
Bloodletting is good for you in certain cases, such as the treatment of hemochromatosis (too much iron in the blood). Not a problem women typically have because, uh, well, you know. :)
Homoeopathy is a joke, no-one can defend it. It is the same as magic beans, there just beans. There has not been any double blind trials which show that it is better than placebo. The arnica trial is a waste of time as it is supposed to reduce bruising, but bruises go away anyhow.
how long are you going to continue with this nonsense? Why don't you simply click onto the two different addresses and you will see they are different?
As usual Zackieboy refuses to look at evidence and picks on some insignificant detail and mistakes this for evidence. I'm going to shut you down kunt.
Oranges are actually good for you. If I believe that they will help my health by drinking dilute orange juice, then I will be surprised to know that I will get well, if I drink ENOUGH of the juice.
Hooya reckons it's a fact that peak respiratory flow fell for the homeopathy group, in a way that WAS statistically significant? (homeopathic dust mite 30c)
Hooya has just included patients subjective feelings, as to the efficacy of homeopathy, into the debate. For Hooya it is OK to use patients beliefs as to whether or not homeopathy does or does not make them better or worse.
Hooya writes ""No participant reported an adverse drug reaction due to homoeopathic immunotherapy during the course of the study."...
The patients had bad reactions but apparently not due to homeopathy. Will you back Hooya's acceptance of this evidence?
@farmerjohn010 "The patients had bad reactions but apparently not due to homeopathy."
Where did you get that silly notion? No, that's not what that means. When someone says 'adverse drug reaction' they usually mean a severe effect that comes after taking the drug, like having an asthma attack; he's saying no one had anything severe like that. Jeesh, use some common sense please.
@Hooya2 You reckoned "it's a fact that peak respiratory flow fell for the homeopathy group, in a way that WAS statistically significant?"
Another point of note is that conceited people only hear the question they want to hear. Conceited people don't hear the question they don't want to hear.
@Hooya2 You reckoned "it's a fact that peak respiratory flow fell for the homeopathy group, in a way that WAS statistically significant?"
Another point of note is that conceited people only hear the question they want to hear. Conceited people don't hear the question they don't want to hear.
I'm not quite sure of your point here. The fall in peak respiratory flow was one of the two significant negative results, in contrast to the one positive significant result and the five null results. It wasn't severe enough to be classed as an adverse drug reaction.
@Hooya2 Homeopathic dustmite is not correct homeopathic prescribing by a homeopath. The fact that significant statistical results, positive and negative were recorded in three out of eight test parameters is your problem not mine. Significant statistical results from homeopathic dustmite is a problem for allopathy. It is not a problem for homeopathy.
You are pedantic, clutching at straws. Your modern medicine is already using high dilutions.
@farmerjohnn010 I've already pointed out how it's your problem as well; the randomness of the effects doesn't fit with your view that homeopathy is actually causing mingled effects. It's also problematic for basic physics (if these results are replicable), since it shouldn't technically be possible. However, it's not a problem for real medicine; showing homeopathy to have an effect wouldn't undercut the demonstrable efficacy of any other medical treatment.
@farmerjohnn010 Where is modern medicine using high dilutions? What straws am I clutching at? And you obviously weren't blocked, since you're posting on his video right now.
@zakiechan I had to open a new one just to make a reply! What's your problem? Can't you see the name is spelt differently? Why can't I post from the old address?
@farmerjohn010 I don't think you even have another account name. It's pretty clear you are just making all this up. Hence your refusal to even tell me what the other name is.
@zakiechan Conceited people should stop trying to proclaim how the world is, or ought to be. If you can't see that farmerjohn is different to farmejohnn then I'm stuck, I can't keep telling you it';s different and you keep denying it. It's the same with every question I ask of you or Hooya. You have a cursory look, you assume you are correct and you say your opponents are wrong and you never check the details, comfortable in your own conceit.
@farmerjohnn010 Ah, and now you are stuck. By me forcing you to give me the name of your supposed other account, I can now check to see if anyone by that name has ever posted here. And surprise surprise, no one by the name of "farmejohn" has ever posted on this video. Caught in yet another lie.
@farmerjohnn010 oooooooooooh! Well, if you would have spelled your user name correctly (you left out an "R"), I would have been able to see that for once, you were actually being truthful about your name.
Unfortunately, you weren't being truthful about being blocked, since you are posting from both names, and have had both accounts for quite some time.
@zakiechan How long are you going to keep this up for? You have nothing better to do. You never check out the facts or you never would have posted your stupid video. For a time I could not post from this address. This is now the big news item which is going to take up all of our posting efforts over the next several months!
@farmerjohn010 I read the article you pointed me to, and I'm somewhat amused.
"An individualized remedy would be given to a number of patients in a double blind fashion and half of the patients would receive placebo the other half would get the real remedy."
How is that not a plain pharmaceutical clinical trial? It's so weird, you've been ranting on and on about 'pharmaceuticalism' being wrong, but you think this experiment is fine? Lol?
Here you have first quoted me and then your response shows you don't understand, and I quote- ""An individualized remedy would be given to a number of patients in a double blind fashion and half of the patients would receive placebo the other half would get the real remedy."
How is that not a plain pharmaceutical clinical trial? It's so weird, you've been ranting on and on about 'pharmaceuticalism' being wrong, but you think this experiment is fine? Lol?""
The "provings" for homeopathy are something Zakieboy doesn't know about. The provings are extensive compilations of drug symptom pictures usually from poisonings. These form the materia medica for homeopathy. The materia medica are known to work because these are the symptoms produced in healthy people when they take a "proving."
If a sick person can be exactly matched to a "proving" from the materia medica then this is the substance which will heal.
@farmerjohn010 I'm aware of this concept of homeopathy--you find a substance that induces a symptom in healthy people, and then by giving that substance (diluted) to ill people with the same symptom you make them better. It's silly (why use something that causes a symptom to cure that symptom?), but it doesn't seem resistant to testing. You have a set of symptoms and a set of treatments, so find a group with the same symptoms and test the treatment on them.
@Hooya2 No. Homeopaths never use the common symptoms. Only the rare and peculiar symptoms are used. You have to find a group with the same rare and peculiar symptoms. But you are being stupid. Each patient gets a consultation and a separate remedy prescribed on his own rare and peculiar symptoms. This is unfathomable to you only because of your closed mindset
Stop repeating your fanciful lie that homeopathy cannot be tested.
Go to vithoulkas(dot)com for the James Randi test details
@farmerjohn010 Homeopaths never use the common symptoms? Just nine hours ago, you said:
"...in homeopathy a patient's TOTAL symptom picture is taken and then one remedy is prescribed... You have find [sic] the most similar symptom picture and then prescribe the remedy from the materia medica which exactly describes ALL THE SYMPTOMS TOGETHER [emphasis mine]."
At least wait a couple days before contradicting your previous comments.
@farmerjohn010 But whatever, you haven't solved the problem. If a particular set of symptoms that calls for a particular treatment is rare, that wouldn't stop a clinical trial. It just means it will take time to find enough people with the right symptoms.
Unless, when you say 'peculiar', you mean unique. In that case, 1 there's no such thing as unique symptoms and 2 if every person requires unique treatment, then you couldn't construct materia medica to begin with!
Homeopathy had better success with pneumonia in 1928 than conventional doctors do today.
Today, pneumonia is the leading cause of death due to infectious diseases in the United States. In 2000, pneumonia/influenza was the eighth leading cause of death in America after heart diseases, cancer, iatrogenic diseases, strokes, chronic lower respiratory diseases, accidents and diabetes (1). At the current rate, one in every 25 Americans (3.9 percent) will die of pneumonia/influenza (2).
@BriscoCountyJr23 I looked up the source you copy/pasted that from; they argue that homeopathy had about a 2.8% fatality rate in one experiment performed in 1928. Unfortunately, the experiment isn't described and the journal the experiment was reported in seems to have failed, so I can't find a description of the trial. However, the fact that the journal in question was named 'Homœopathy' and that it was done in 1928 makes me seriously doubt that it used controlled double-blind studies.
@Hooya2 The mortality rate for pneumonia is well established, it would be immoral to use double blind studies when the mortality rate from pneumonia can be 30 to 70% when untreated. It was a survey conducted in 1928 among homeopathic physicians reports a death rate of 2.8 percent among 11,526 patients with pneumonia who were treated with pure homeopathy.
@BriscoCountyJr23 Double-blind studies are a requirement for getting good information, and there's no negative impact on the health of the patients. I think you mean it would be immoral to use control groups--but in that case, I think you're misunderstanding how controls work. You seem to assume control groups go untreated, but that isn't necessarily the case; controls can get standard care and still serve as a contrast to the test group.
@BriscoCountyJr23 I read the same article on the National Center for Homeopathy's website that you did, so I know just as much about the experiment as you do. The problem is, that isn't enough to judge it's relevance. How were the participants chosen? Location, age-range, diagnostic tests to determine if they actually had pneumonia? If there was a randomly selected control group with much higher fatality rates, that alone would show homeopathy was effective.
@BriscoCountyJr23 Yes the 1918 influenza is another good case. Allopaths typically lost 30% of their patients, with most deaths being caused by pneumonia induced by aspirin.
Homeopaths lost typically no patients at all, or only those who had been already given up on by allopathic doctors or those who continued to take aspirin.
"The German Aspirin has killed more people than the German bullets killed.--C. J. Loizeaux, M. D., Des Moines, Iowa. (c1918)
@BriscoCountyJr23 The critics of homeopathy can't even understand how homeopathy prescribes one remedy for the total symptom picture. Take Zakie and Hooya for example, they just cannot understand. Allopathic prescribing based on individual symptoms has been so overwhelmingly ingrained in their minds that when homeopathy's treatment of the total symptom picture is explained to them, in terms which any reasonable person would understand, they just cannot understand.
ive tried homopathic medication and actuputure and that help my allergys better than medicine, however my homopath did state "nothing can cure the cold and you cant take a pill and it will magically go away" even thou i did do biochemical sciences, i think its just one of those things if it works for that person then great. athou i am slightly offended that you compared homopathic remdies to creationism.
Go to CBC podcasts THE CURRENT and listen to what is wrong with medical evidence
10/11/10: Pt 3 - Medical Evidence
John Ioaniddis has spent a long time pushing evidence-based medicine. And in the process his faith in how we search for truth has been shaken. Dr. Ioaniddis feels much of what we think we know about medicine is wrong and that much of the information doctors base their treatments on is flawed.
Right click to Download 10/11/10: Pt 3 - Medical Evidence
I agree homeopathic medicine is suspicious , but so is chemotherapy . In fact according to the the cancer statistics a cancer patient who recieves chem has about a 6% chance of being alive in 10 years . A cancer patient who recieves NO TREATMENT whatsoever has about a 19% chance of being alive in 10 years . The statistics indicate chemo lessens your chance of surviving chemo . There is a difference between killing a tumor in vitro vs in vivo . Chemo is a scam !
Airborne works , according to every study on its ingredients ever done . Why ? Vitamin C strengthens the immune system . Riboflavin , Zinc ,Selenium and Potassium ALL have proven effectiveness in supporting the immune system . These are the ingredients in Airborne . Arguing that Airborne is ineffective is arguing against the AMA and known University studies worldwide . You started the video with a very poor example . If you somehow think the FDA cares about your health , you're on crack .
@MindofaJedi Uh, no it doesn't. Just check out the wiki article to read all about it. Airborne now claims to be a dietary supplement, because it could not support it's original claims with any evidence, and was sued for deceptive advertising.
@MindofaJedi I am afraid you are incorrect. Just check out the wiki article to read all about it. Airborne now claims to be a dietary supplement, because it could not support it's original claims with any evidence, and was sued for false advertising.
@zakiechan Yes it was sued , but I am not incorrect . It works . The ingredients each work on their own and it works as a whole . There is absolutely no question from a scientific point of view that it works . The FDA is VERY interested in making people believe that only pharmaceutical drugs can help people . They even banned trytophan because a "bad batch " killed people in Japan , although this was eventually proven to be a pay off from the makers of Paxil . Peace .
@den151redbank Agreed. Zakie can't even understand what's been posted.
I explained that homeopathy needs to be tested in the manner it is claimed to work and not in the manner that pharmacists reckon it ought to work, but he cannot understand this. Nor can he produce a single study which has falsified these actual claims of homeopathy.
Typical of zakie's ignorance to think that RCT's are the only way to determine homeopathic efficacy.
Of course he can't produce a study which has falsified positive h'pathy results although there are 100's of studies of drugs which have been proven to be falsified. In fact, a study in JAMA found that over 40% of the best designed, peer reviewed scientific papers published in top medical journals misrepresented the actual findings of the research.
Poor zakie.....no matter how hard he tries to stay afloat, the research in h'pathy keeps pulling him back under water. "Using market samples of metal-derived medicines.....we have demonstrated for the first time by Transmission Electron Microscopy, electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES) the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals....."
This quote is from "Extreme Homeopathy Dilutions Retain Starting Materials: A Nanoparticulate Perspective", a paper by the Department of Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology.
How much longer can zakie keep his head above "water"? (Is that a pun?)
Hey, Zakie posted a herbal study which claimed to prove that echinacea and herbal remedies don't work. I found the experiment and in the results it was admitted that the trial was inconclusive, because "other chemical constituents or combinations of constituents that were not tested in the study could have important biologic effects..(and)..it is also possible, although unlikely, that echinacea is effective for the treatment of respiratory pathogens other than rhinovirus"
@den151redbank Thank you for actually posting a study! Now, the question is: has this been replicated? If yes, how does this help the claim that like cures like, or that such small traces of a substance will have an effect on a body?
Also, how do you account for the studies that I have already cited?
@den151redbank Wait. It was published in the journal Homeopathy? Sigh. Never mind. Come back when you have a study that was published in a real journal... at least something with a decent impact factor.
Otherwise, its just like creationists making their own journals to publish in.
Again, this is just more evidence of your willingness to accept any sort of garbage, as long as it supports your view.
A number of well-controlled botanical experiments have been performed by homeopathic investigators, the reason perhaps being (as stated by one French physician)- "is there anyone who will claim a placebo effect on plants?"
Kolisko, in 1923, was a pioneer in this field, soaking wheat seeds and others in microdilutions (up to 10 to the power of -30) of such substances as iron sulfate, antimony trioxide, and a double-salt of copper....
...She found that growth was promoted by the lower dilutions, then inhibited with higher dilutions, and then again stimulated at even higher dilutions. Both measurement and weighing of the shoots gave the same result. Her work continued for decades, and a full report of her experiments was published in 1959.
She was followed in this by Wilhelm Pelikan Georg Unger who published similar results in 1965.(cite) One of their experiments investigated the effects of microdoses of silver nitrate on the growth of wheat seeds. It tested the effect of 12 different microdoses of siver nitrate (8X to 19X), plus one control, on the germination and sprouting of the seeds; the series was repeated 240 times, and statistical analysis of the results showed the effect of the different potencies....
...The length of shoots increased from 8X to 11X, then dropped at 12X, rose again through 13X aND 14X, dropped at 16X, rose at 17X and 18X, and dropped at 19X. Thus the effects of progressively "higher" potencies took the form of a sinusoidal curve.
@farmerjohn010 I can't find Kolisko's paper. But I did find an article referring to it as a "poorly designed or underpowered study." But really, you can't cite something from within the last couple years?
The great physicist Richard Feynman says that nature will turn out to be how it is. You can't decide how you reckon nature should be, and then design experiments to confirm this.
Go and find me a materials scientist who will support your claim that 30 serial dilutions at 1:100 of any substance (even plutonium) cannot leave behind any clathrates or nanobubbles through the action of epitaxy.
I might add that serial dilutions well over about 200C are not thought to have any effect in homeopathy.
@farmerjohn010 Feynman also said "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
Denying evidence is not a good method of not fooling yourself.
@zakiechan Rationalist medical thinkers have denied the existence of a "vital force" apart from, and superior to the organism's physiochemical constituents. They have assumed the identity of organic and inorganic matter in bringing both within the purview of physics, chemistry, and mechanics:
-There is no essential difference between the structural chemistry of life and that of inanimate nature.--Fielding H. Garrison, 1922
@farmerjohn010 Of course I don't think there is a mystical"vital force."
Yes, there is no difference between the the carbon in a human and a carbon in a wooden chair (structurally speaking). What is important is how the chemistry interacts with other things present in the organism.
In his experiments on keratitis produced by a crystalline substance extracted from cultures of staphylococcus aureus, Theodor Leber (1840 - 1917) showed that the leukocytes at a distance were attracted toward the point where this substance had been introduced. On putting some small glass tubes filled with this substance into the anterior chamber of the eye, they became filled with a mass of leukocytes,...
... although the tubes were so placed that the cells had to move against gravity in order to effect an entry into them.
--Elie Metchnikoff, 1893
This ability to sense where the potential victim is located and to move in that direction ("chemotaxis" or "chemiotaxis") is a mystery: "We still have no explanation, and in fact no good hypothesis, to explain this action at a distance."
Coulter writes that physicians sometimes hope that physicists will rescue them from their frustrations and disappointments in the search for ultimate causes. But a real physicist, such as Neils Bohr, views this as vapid and silly: "The closed processes studied in quantum physics are not directly analogous to biological functions...
...Moreover, any experimental arrangement which would permit control of such functions to the extent demanded for their well defined description in physical terms would be prohibitive to the free display of life. This very circumstance, however, suggests an attitude to the problem of organic life providing a more appropriate balance between a mechanistic and a finalistic approach....
...In fact, just as the quantum of action appears in the account of atomic phenomena as an element for which an explanation is neither possible nor required, the notion of life is elementary in biological science... The main point is that only by renouncing an explanation of life in the ordinary sense do we gain a possibility of taking into account its characteristics."
Neils Bohr. Quoted by Harris Coulter in Divided Legacy Volume 4
@farmerjohn010 I have no idea what you are trying to get at. The definition of life is left to the bio chemists, not the physicists. Regardless, I have no idea what point you are trying to make, or what you are arguing for. And Bohr is NOT at the cutting edge of bio chem.
@zakiechan I asked you if there was a vital force and you denied it. You said there is no difference between life and inanimate matter.
Neils Bohr observed that biological phenomena are "irreversible," that living organisms "utilize past experience for reactions to future stimuli," and that "quantum phenomena exhibit no feature indicating that an organisation of atoms is able to adapt itself to the surroundings in the ways we witness in the maintenance and evolution of living organisms.
...Furthermore, it must be stressed that an account, exhaustive in the sense of quantum physics, of all the continually exchanged atoms in the organism not only is infeasible but would obviously require observational conditions incompatible with the display of life."
Sounds like Neils Bohr is talking distinctly about biological systems to me.
@farmerjohn010 Good lord. I did NOT say that there is no difference between life and inanimate matter. You are either just purposefully lying, or not reading what I wrote. Go back and try again.
Still, I have NO idea what this has to do with evidence for homeopathy.
@zakiechan Bohr is challenging the very paradigm, the assumptions and tenets upon which biochem is founded. Do you deny that this is what Bohr mean't?
@farmerjohn010 It seems like Bohr is claiming that quantum mechanics cannot account for the behavior of biological systems. But that's a no brainier. QM only works on the Q level.
And I don't get what that has to do with homeopathy. You should just admit that you can't cite any evidence in which homeopathy is shown to work.
@zakiechan If you can't understand Bohr's language that's your problem not mine. Bohr is intentionally and deliberately undermining the very foundation of medical science and biochemistry. Read his statements again.
I asked you above specifically if you agreed with the rationalist concept that life can be reduced to chemical equations, and with rationalism's belief in the identity of organic and inorganic matter as stated above, and you agreed.
@farmerjohn010 I understood Bohr, I just failed to see the relevance.
I told you that yes, the molecules of say carbon in a chair and a person are the same. But that doesn't mean that everything else about them is the same. Different processes are going on in living organisms.
@zakiechan Zakie wants to know what he said that would suggest to me that he accepts a 17th century view of science (The vital force is presumably what he mean't)
He said he understood (and presumably accepted) Neils Bohr. That is the answer. If he accepts Bohr's statements, then he agrees with Bohr on the existence of the vital force.
@zakiechan Oh you mean't the chemiotaxis, which still cannot be explained. Funny that.
Your science has skipped past an apparent impossibility, impracticality or self-contradiction of your currently favored theory by assuming that the problem can somehow be fixed or circumvented or explained at some later date.
@farmerjohn010 No, you are just relying on 100 year old science. Just go to wikipedia. You are also relying on a false dichotomy: "If bio can't currently explain it, then the vital force is right."
@zakiechan Smartypants, you can start explaining how the leucocytes went against gravity to fill the empty glass tubes in Elie Metchnikoff's experiment of 1893.
@farmerjohn010 I have a friend who is a PhD biochem student. I showed her your posts, she was quite taken aback, and said that you seem to have no idea what you are talking about, and are confusing your own ignorance for a scientific mystery... All that stuff is all well explained.
She then went on in some detail of how it worked, but I didn't really understand it. Though, she never used the term "vital force", and wasn't even sure what that meant, since it never appears in the literature.
@zakiechan Better get the biochemist to start explaining fast, and I only quoted Neils Bohr, so your biochemist friend believes that Neils Bohr is confusing his own ignorance for a scientific mystery!
Either you accept the vital force or you do not. You believe that life is reducible to physical, chemical mechanistic terms or you do not. You believe that life is no different from inanimate matter or you do not. You agree with Bohr's observations or you do not. You can't go halfway.
@zakiechan Your PhD biochemist student friend is pretty dumb, because as I indicated, I copied verbatim from Coulter's medical history text the accounts of Theodor Leber's experiment proving the action at a distance of leukocytes as reported by Elie Metchnikoff in 1893, and the conclusions of James G. Hirsch in 1959.
@farmerjohn010 Wait... since an actual biochemist knows way more about the topic than a scientist from 100 years ago, that makes her dumb?
FJ010, this is an absurd waste of my time, and I have no idea why I have even bothered to respond to your insane, incoherent, confused, paranoid posts for so long. I am done.
@zakiechan Hey shitforbrains, the comments weren't mine. I've consistently stated that I simply copied them from Harris Coulter's Divided Legacy. That's my point, you and your biochemist friend seem to be incapable of grasping this.
@farmerjohn010 Quotes from over 50 years ago... join us in the 21st century please. Scientists are well aware of how chemotaxis works--chemical gradients in the body induce cells to move toward or away from the source. For example, formyl peptides, which are released from dying cells and some bacteria, attract white blood cells.
We also know how cells move, even against gravity; it's called pseudopodia, where the cell extends and contracts using it's skeleton of actin proteins.
@Hooya2 Your scientific "truths" are only truths for today. This is a problem for your rationalist medicine. All of your textbooks need to be rewritten every ten years or so, and what was accepted yesterday as scientific truth, is tomorrow consigned to the rubbish bin.
Homeopathy and vitalism are true for all time.
You have not explained chemiotaxis or how the leukocytes moved against gravity when not in contact with any chemical.
If you said magnetism works because opposite polarities attract each other and you reckoned that was a sufficient explanation for magnetism, then you would be wrong, because that is an insufficient explanation for magnetism.
This is what you are doing for your chemiotaxis, that is, oversimplification to the point of being wrong.
@farmerjohn010 They moved 'against gravity' by using pseudopods in a liquid environment--it's like swimming. They were in contact with chemicals; according to how you described the experiment, the glass tubes containing the whatever-it-was from the staph bacteria were open, meaning the fluid in the eye would have entered the tubes. That fluid would doubtless have eroded some of the substance, allowing it to enter the body and be 'smelled' by the leukocytes.
So the leukocytes "smell" it do they? and then they presumanly "decide" where to go to do battle! I suggested exactly this in a fearsome argument with a neurobiologist "tj2mag" on exactly this topic on the other "Dawkins versus Homeopath- Irrational Health Service" youtube video, now removed.
Ferociously, he made exactly the opposite argument you are now making! And I gave the vitalist explanation that you now seem to be moving towards.
@farmerjohn010 Yes, they 'smell' it; the formyl receptors on the surface of the cell membrane pick up the formyl peptides emitted by the bacterial substance, and the chemical cascades caused by the detection of formyl peptides induces the outer shell of the membrane to grow and contract, moving it through the body. Don't pretend like this type of reaction is in any way vitalism, because you know very well what I'm describing is purely reductionist physics, even if I short-hand it as 'smell'.
Do you suppose Coulter also faked Neils Bohr's comments on the vital force?
Neils Bohr observed that biological phenomena are "irreversible," that living organisms "utilize past experience for reactions to future stimuli," and that "quantum phenomena exhibit no feature indicating that an organisation of atoms is able to adapt itself to the surroundings in the ways we witness in the maintenance and evolution of living organisms....
@farmerjohn010 He might very well have--I'm not entirely sure what Bohr was trying to say in those quotes. What does he mean by 'irreversible' in this context? What does he mean when he says that quantum phenomena don't appear to be capable of organizing that way--that it's simply counter-intuitive that quantum systems could be that complex and continuous, or that there is some genuine discontinuity?
@farmerjohn010 I'm 'big-headed' because I know what I'm talking about; I know that we do have a biochemical explanation for chemotaxis, and I know that biology has had remarkable success in breaking life down to pure (if complicated) physics, with no vitalistic force.
My lack of understanding derives primarily from poor contextualization; it's clear from phrases like 'In fact' and 'The main point' that these quotes are summaries of a more complicated viewpoint.
@farmerjohn010 Was there an argument in there? You criticize me for thinking I have the answers, but you haven't poked holes in the answers I've given. You imply my hypothesis isn't testable, but all you have to do to test it is place a leukocyte in a chemically neutral environment and place a bacteria in an isolated solution nearby. If chemotaxis is driven by chemical gradient, the leukocyte won't move; if it's some magical power of attraction or action at a distance, it will.
@Hooya2 There'll be other mechanisms besides biochemical. The body has electrical as well as quantum effects. Your experiment only proves that you have made a biased assumption that there can only be one possible method, and this is the premise you are starting from.
Zakieboy says you can't "assume homeopathy in order to test homeopathy." But this is absurd.
From Popper, "Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions."
@farmerjohn010 This rebuttal is so incoherent, I doubt you understood what I was saying. The test I proposed was a way to test the theory that chemical gradients are what induces motion. Clearly, the experiment is risky; if the leukocytes move toward the bacteria when it's chemically isolated from the bacteria, then the chemical gradient theory is wrong. If it is true that there are other mechanisms besides biochem, then we can expect the leukocyte to move, and I'll be proven wrong.
@Hooya2 No I was referring to Zakie's rebuttal of good trials constructed to test the actual claims of homeopathy. This is the most logical, the most risky and the most agreed upon method by homeopaths of testing the theories of homeopathy.
We are limited to 500 words and perhaps I didn't make clear that I had moved on to another related subject.
Now with your chemical isolation you may also isolate quantum effects and electrical impulses. How does your experiment show that this is not the case?
Zakieboy says you can't assume homeopathy in order to test homeopathy.
Karl Popper writes "With Einstein's theory the situation was strikingly different...the impressive thing was the risk involved in the prediction [of the amount by which light should be bent by gravity]. The theory was incompatible with certain possible results of observations -in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected."
Einstein assumed light would be bent by gravity and then he tested it.
@farmerjohn010 You shouldn't assume something to be true prior to testing it. If you assume it is true, your results may be biased. Of course, you also shouldn't assume it's false, for the same reason. You make predictions of what the world would be like if it were true, and then test those predictions; that's not the same as assuming it's true.
Nothing in what Karl Popper wrote implies that Einstein assumed relativity was true before testing it.
@Hooya2 Zakiechan, who is another shit for brains like you, says the claims of homeopathy cannot be tested because that means you would have to "assume homeopathy to test homeopathy."
@farmerjohn010 I don't know if you're lying or if you just genuinely can't understand what other people are saying, but Zakiechan didn't say that claims of homeopathy can't be tested. Indeed, he's said repeatedly that they have been and have failed the tests. He did say that you can't assume homeopathy is true to test homeopathy, but that doesn't imply homeopathy can't be tested at all, it just has to be tested skeptically, like every other idea in science.
@Hooya2 Zakieboy says homeopathy must not be tested in the manner it is claimed to work by homeopaths, but that it must instead be tested in the manner in which it would suit pharmaceuticalists for homeopathy to work.
Homeopathy treats symptom totality. You cannot treat one symptom. You can't say this pill is for asthma, this one for cancer. Fifty asthma patients may get fifty different remedies. Homeopaths like George Vithoulkas are perfectly willing to put homeopathy to the appropriate tests.
@farmerjohn010 There are only 2 possibilities here--either every patient requires different treatment, in which case homeopathy is so complicated it's incomprehensible and all homeopaths are frauds, or there are some predictable patterns, and some patients with the same symptoms can be treated in similar ways. If there is an underlying pattern, then it can be tested in pharmaceutical studies.
@farmerjohn010 What, now I get nothing but insults? Look, I think we both know that I'm not stupid, and I'm fairly well-informed on the topic. Your errors in communication aren't my problem.
If I'm wrong in regards to homeopathic methodology, tell me where? Are there underlying patterns, or aren't there? If there are, why can't they be tested in clinical trials? If I'm wrong in regards to the experiment, tell me where? Would my test not falsify chemical gradients?
@Hooya2 You couldn't understand my simple questions and you reckon you understand Neils Bohr.
You admit that you don't know anything at all about homeopathic methodology and you reckon you want me to explain it. Well I've been attempting to explain it to you all along, in the manner that it needs to be tested, but you have a simple mindset and you cannot grasp any of the concepts.
@farmerjohn010 Another useless post. I'm ignoring your insults, but I'll say this: nowhere in our discussion have you once made an attempt to explain the methodology of homeopathy or described test of it. If I'm wrong, then copy/paste a quote from a comment you've made to me in the past that addresses that point.
I would appreciate it if you did address that, or my experiment, or why homeopathy can't be tested in clinical trials.
"Homeopathy treats symptom totality. You cannot treat one symptom. You can't say this pill is for asthma, this one for cancer. Fifty asthma patients may get fifty different remedies. Homeopaths like George Vithoulkas are perfectly willing to put homeopathy to the appropriate tests."
And you responded by saying that homeopathy is far too complicated.
I've never said that homeopathy cannot be tested, only that the methodology of pharmaceutical testing is wrong.
@farmerjohn010 That doesn't explain the methodology of homeopathy, or describe a test for it. And my response was not a claim that homeopathy is far too complicated; I said that IF every patient requires a different treatment, then homeopathy is too complicated for everyone to understand. Are you saying that is the case, and every single patient if homeopathy needs a different treatment?
If pharmaceutical testing is wrong, then explain why, and put forward a test you think would be valid.
@Hooya2 You are supposed to already know. Here you are condemning homeopathy and you don't know anything at all about it. Go to Vithoulkas website and read the experiment he has advocated which James Randi has renigged on.
Simply put, in homeopathy a patient's total symptom picture is taken and then one remedy is prescribed. Think of resonance. You have find the most similar symptom picture and then prescribe the remedy from the materia medica which exactly describes all the symptoms together.
@farmerjohn010 How would I know? Homeopathy is hardly a unified field; plenty of you lot have conflicting views of what proper tests are. You're going to have to be more specific on where I can find the test description on Vithoulkas' site, or, better yet, summarize it here!
But from your description, the trials are done EXACTLY like how a normal clinical trial works. You find patients who have a common set of symptoms, and give them the same treatment.
@Hooya2 If you bothered reading the posts below between me and Zakieboy you would have already seen me describe the manner in which tests can be conducted appropriately in accordance with homeopathic teachings. Zakieboy renigs on this just like James Randi.
You can go to sonicfoundry(dot)com/uconn and listen to Iris Bell, who is about the fourth speaker in this international homeopathy debate, lay out how tests should be conducted and some of the results to date.
@farmerjohn010 I'd rather not sift through hundreds of old comments, or watch a two hour presentation, when it's so much easier to just ask you for a quick summary--especially since I'm more interested in what you're thinking now than in what another homeopath said, or what you said weeks ago.
@Hooya2 Rustum Roy, the materials scientist, is the second speaker who presents his evidence of the spectroscopic distinctions between homeopathic remedies at the conference, and predictably you cannot be bothered to listen.
You talk about newsletters containing skeptic experiments?
Where did you find those and how do I sign up :)
politicomdk 1 month ago
@politicomdk It's not just newsletters... it's magazines, journal articles, news articles, etc. Though, I would suggest the Skeptic newsletter if you are interested in that sort of thing.
zakiechan 1 month ago
When I was 11 I was saved by homeopath/MD. He cured me of tuberculosis using homeopathy, after another MD almost killed me (I was literally on my deathbed). I didn't know about the placebo effect at that time, but now, 20 years later, I'm still alive and I think if there was any placebo effect it would have worn out by now!
pkkda 9 months ago
@pkkda Correlation is not causation. Though, I am glad you are alive! It's odd though that you would be on your deathbed from treatment... it's not some new thing. Curing TB is not really a problem with normal medical treatment.
zakiechan 9 months ago 2
@zakiechan You and others of your disposition could continue to take the drugs approved by the FDA, many of which are later taken off the market because they are harmful or ineffective. That tells something of the FDA's approval process!! You appear to be ignorant of the term 'iatrogenesis' - that's what almost sent be to my deathbed. I'll stick with the placebo effect of homeopathy, thanks.
pkkda 9 months ago
@zakiechan My uncle (MD) had a greater correlation curing diseases with homeopathic than with allopathic medication, and therefore his choice was to mostly use the former. Correlation is not causation, but let's be pragmatic about it.
pkkda 9 months ago
@pkkda If you want to be pragmatic, you have to toss homeopathy. Look at all the studies that show it doesn't work. What is more likely, that your uncle is wrong, or that all the studies are wrong?
zakiechan 9 months ago 3
Comment removed
pkkda 9 months ago
Comment removed
pkkda 9 months ago
@zakiechan All the studies? What studies are you referring to? Who were the studies paid by? Google “Nobel Scientist Discovers Scientific Basis of Homeopathy” & in general do some other research to discover alternatives to your views. What scientific basis does mainstream medicine have? None for immunizations; none for their cancer “cures”, etc. Their drugs are taken off the market regularly due to their ineffectiveness & harmful side effects. Does homeopathy have any less credibility?
pkkda 9 months ago
@pkkda Well, for starters, there are 20 studies linked in the video info. I have done quite a bit of research into homeopathy and alt medicine. The fact that you aren't aware that studies showing homeopathy to be nonsense exist tells me that you haven't taken your own advice. Also, are you not aware that Montagnier's research has been thoroughly discredited? However, even if true, they don't support any of homeopathy's basic tenets (read the actual research)
zakiechan 9 months ago 2
Less analogies, more science please.
hobbsilla 9 months ago
@hobbsilla Check the video info... I have listed 20 different studies.
zakiechan 9 months ago
@zakiechan
You should've gone over some of the quotes to your links, data, analysis or studies within the actual video. You come off as more knowledgeable on the subject if you're able to successfully communicate the information from the studies to people within your video.
hobbsilla 9 months ago
@hobbsilla I agree... but the guy filming it asked me to just describe the logic and basic "science" of it, and why it doesn't work.
zakiechan 9 months ago
Thanks ihr, I am happy to report that since trying this ny leg has actually fallen off and I am now able to hop much further due to my reduction in weight. So unbelievers, it really does work!
plutonium837 11 months ago
I have it on good authority that elphant dung ingested in small quantities (but only at midnight on the third day of the waning moon) can cure my broken leg. I am so happy to hear this. Where can I get some elephant dung capsules?
plutonium837 1 year ago
@plutonium837 Well what I'd suggest as a professional homeopath is to talk to your local pharmacist about ingesting water, I mean dung tablets. Then you should go straight to your doctor and have your leg put in a cast. What this does it keeps the cells (energies) in your leg bone static so that the water, I mean dung, can do it's job of something something crystal mesopholiptic antigenerationalization. That way the leg key in your body will meet with the unbreak key.
Hope that helped.
ihaterobbie123 11 months ago
Wondering about those comments providing misinformation about homeopathy? Check out the web site for extraordinary medicine org.
den151redbank 1 year ago
Guess what, Zackie?
NASDAQ held a ceremony on December 29th at the closing bell to honor the opening of the American Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix next month. " Welcome AMCH" flashed across the NASDAQ tower in blue neon lights several floors tall. Lit up the sky!
Bless!
den151redbank 1 year ago
@den151redbank Well, as long as we are talking about things that have zero relevance to the truth or falsity of homeopathy... I am turning 28 next Friday (on the 28th, golden bday!). A bunch of my friends are coming over and we are having a big party. I am really looking forward to it, and it is going to be a blast! The next day, we might take my friend's RV to the coast for the day. RV trips are always super fun! Needless to say, I am really looking forward to next weekend!
zakiechan 1 year ago
Don't know much about it, and never tried it. No worries. :)
Just a couple points. In Canada, most doctors actually are paid by the government. That might explain why Canadians don't go bankrupt because of healthcare and live longer than US citizens.
Bloodletting is good for you in certain cases, such as the treatment of hemochromatosis (too much iron in the blood). Not a problem women typically have because, uh, well, you know. :)
AlainSaffel 1 year ago
Homoeopathy is a joke, no-one can defend it. It is the same as magic beans, there just beans. There has not been any double blind trials which show that it is better than placebo. The arnica trial is a waste of time as it is supposed to reduce bruising, but bruises go away anyhow.
mik99D 1 year ago
How long is zackieboy going to keep up this charade?
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
how long are you going to continue with this nonsense? Why don't you simply click onto the two different addresses and you will see they are different?
As usual Zackieboy refuses to look at evidence and picks on some insignificant detail and mistakes this for evidence. I'm going to shut you down kunt.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
Comment removed
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 lol yeah ok.
zakiechan 1 year ago
Oranges are actually good for you. If I believe that they will help my health by drinking dilute orange juice, then I will be surprised to know that I will get well, if I drink ENOUGH of the juice.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
Homeopathy is not a placebo.
Smithpromotions 1 year ago
@Smithpromotions So how do you explain all the studies that say it is?
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan Simple. They are biased studies with biased interpreters selectively fudging the results and the maths.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@zakiechan
Hooya reckons it's a fact that peak respiratory flow fell for the homeopathy group, in a way that WAS statistically significant? (homeopathic dust mite 30c)
Will you back him?
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@zakiechan
Hooya has just included patients subjective feelings, as to the efficacy of homeopathy, into the debate. For Hooya it is OK to use patients beliefs as to whether or not homeopathy does or does not make them better or worse.
Hooya writes ""No participant reported an adverse drug reaction due to homoeopathic immunotherapy during the course of the study."...
The patients had bad reactions but apparently not due to homeopathy. Will you back Hooya's acceptance of this evidence?
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 "The patients had bad reactions but apparently not due to homeopathy."
Where did you get that silly notion? No, that's not what that means. When someone says 'adverse drug reaction' they usually mean a severe effect that comes after taking the drug, like having an asthma attack; he's saying no one had anything severe like that. Jeesh, use some common sense please.
Hooya2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hooya2 You said
" it's a fact that peak respiratory flow fell for the homeopathy group, in a way that WAS statistically significant?"
So you withdraw this statement now, because it doesn't suit you.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hooya2 " it's a fact that peak respiratory flow fell for the homeopathy group, in a way that WAS statistically significant?"
These were your words
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hooya2 You reckoned "it's a fact that peak respiratory flow fell for the homeopathy group, in a way that WAS statistically significant?"
Another point of note is that conceited people only hear the question they want to hear. Conceited people don't hear the question they don't want to hear.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@Hooya2 You reckoned "it's a fact that peak respiratory flow fell for the homeopathy group, in a way that WAS statistically significant?"
Another point of note is that conceited people only hear the question they want to hear. Conceited people don't hear the question they don't want to hear.
farmerjohnn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohnn010 It's been a while.
I'm not quite sure of your point here. The fall in peak respiratory flow was one of the two significant negative results, in contrast to the one positive significant result and the five null results. It wasn't severe enough to be classed as an adverse drug reaction.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 Homeopathic dustmite is not correct homeopathic prescribing by a homeopath. The fact that significant statistical results, positive and negative were recorded in three out of eight test parameters is your problem not mine. Significant statistical results from homeopathic dustmite is a problem for allopathy. It is not a problem for homeopathy.
You are pedantic, clutching at straws. Your modern medicine is already using high dilutions.
farmerjohnn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohnn010 I've already pointed out how it's your problem as well; the randomness of the effects doesn't fit with your view that homeopathy is actually causing mingled effects. It's also problematic for basic physics (if these results are replicable), since it shouldn't technically be possible. However, it's not a problem for real medicine; showing homeopathy to have an effect wouldn't undercut the demonstrable efficacy of any other medical treatment.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@farmerjohnn010 Where is modern medicine using high dilutions? What straws am I clutching at? And you obviously weren't blocked, since you're posting on his video right now.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 No I got blocked by Zakieboy. He doesn't like difficult questions.
farmerjohnn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohnn010 Don't make stuff up. You weren't blocked, and never have been.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan Well I'm unable to post from my other account. How would you explain that?
farmerjohnn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohnn010 You've been posting through multiple accounts?
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan I had to open a new one just to make a reply! What's your problem? Can't you see the name is spelt differently? Why can't I post from the old address?
farmerjohnn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohnn010 You've had this name since March.
What is the name of the account of yours I allegedly blocked?
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan fine lets see if I can post then
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 I don't think you even have another account name. It's pretty clear you are just making all this up. Hence your refusal to even tell me what the other name is.
zakiechan 1 year ago
Comment removed
farmerjohnn010 1 year ago
@zakiechan Conceited people should stop trying to proclaim how the world is, or ought to be. If you can't see that farmerjohn is different to farmejohnn then I'm stuck, I can't keep telling you it';s different and you keep denying it. It's the same with every question I ask of you or Hooya. You have a cursory look, you assume you are correct and you say your opponents are wrong and you never check the details, comfortable in your own conceit.
farmerjohnn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohnn010 Ah, and now you are stuck. By me forcing you to give me the name of your supposed other account, I can now check to see if anyone by that name has ever posted here. And surprise surprise, no one by the name of "farmejohn" has ever posted on this video. Caught in yet another lie.
zakiechan 1 year ago
Comment removed
farmerjohnn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohnn010 oooooooooooh! Well, if you would have spelled your user name correctly (you left out an "R"), I would have been able to see that for once, you were actually being truthful about your name.
Unfortunately, you weren't being truthful about being blocked, since you are posting from both names, and have had both accounts for quite some time.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan How long are you going to keep this up for? You have nothing better to do. You never check out the facts or you never would have posted your stupid video. For a time I could not post from this address. This is now the big news item which is going to take up all of our posting efforts over the next several months!
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
Comment removed
toffeeangieful1 1 year ago
@Smithpromotions Don't worry about Zakieboy. He can't even name any such study.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
Comment removed
Hooya2 1 year ago
Go to vithoulkas(dot)com and read the article titled
"The facts about an ingenious homeopathic exp that wasn't completed due to “tricks” of Mr J Randi "
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 I read the article you pointed me to, and I'm somewhat amused.
"An individualized remedy would be given to a number of patients in a double blind fashion and half of the patients would receive placebo the other half would get the real remedy."
How is that not a plain pharmaceutical clinical trial? It's so weird, you've been ranting on and on about 'pharmaceuticalism' being wrong, but you think this experiment is fine? Lol?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 you still don't understand.
Here you have first quoted me and then your response shows you don't understand, and I quote- ""An individualized remedy would be given to a number of patients in a double blind fashion and half of the patients would receive placebo the other half would get the real remedy."
How is that not a plain pharmaceutical clinical trial? It's so weird, you've been ranting on and on about 'pharmaceuticalism' being wrong, but you think this experiment is fine? Lol?""
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 After all that, Hooya still thinks that every patient gets the same remedy in a homeopathic double blind!
He says "How is that not a plain pharmaceutical clinical trial?"
He doesn't get it despite swearing blind that he gets it.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
The "provings" for homeopathy are something Zakieboy doesn't know about. The provings are extensive compilations of drug symptom pictures usually from poisonings. These form the materia medica for homeopathy. The materia medica are known to work because these are the symptoms produced in healthy people when they take a "proving."
If a sick person can be exactly matched to a "proving" from the materia medica then this is the substance which will heal.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 I'm aware of this concept of homeopathy--you find a substance that induces a symptom in healthy people, and then by giving that substance (diluted) to ill people with the same symptom you make them better. It's silly (why use something that causes a symptom to cure that symptom?), but it doesn't seem resistant to testing. You have a set of symptoms and a set of treatments, so find a group with the same symptoms and test the treatment on them.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 No. Homeopaths never use the common symptoms. Only the rare and peculiar symptoms are used. You have to find a group with the same rare and peculiar symptoms. But you are being stupid. Each patient gets a consultation and a separate remedy prescribed on his own rare and peculiar symptoms. This is unfathomable to you only because of your closed mindset
Stop repeating your fanciful lie that homeopathy cannot be tested.
Go to vithoulkas(dot)com for the James Randi test details
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Homeopaths never use the common symptoms? Just nine hours ago, you said:
"...in homeopathy a patient's TOTAL symptom picture is taken and then one remedy is prescribed... You have find [sic] the most similar symptom picture and then prescribe the remedy from the materia medica which exactly describes ALL THE SYMPTOMS TOGETHER [emphasis mine]."
At least wait a couple days before contradicting your previous comments.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 But whatever, you haven't solved the problem. If a particular set of symptoms that calls for a particular treatment is rare, that wouldn't stop a clinical trial. It just means it will take time to find enough people with the right symptoms.
Unless, when you say 'peculiar', you mean unique. In that case, 1 there's no such thing as unique symptoms and 2 if every person requires unique treatment, then you couldn't construct materia medica to begin with!
Hooya2 1 year ago
Homeopathy had better success with pneumonia in 1928 than conventional doctors do today.
Today, pneumonia is the leading cause of death due to infectious diseases in the United States. In 2000, pneumonia/influenza was the eighth leading cause of death in America after heart diseases, cancer, iatrogenic diseases, strokes, chronic lower respiratory diseases, accidents and diabetes (1). At the current rate, one in every 25 Americans (3.9 percent) will die of pneumonia/influenza (2).
BriscoCountyJr23 1 year ago
@BriscoCountyJr23 I looked up the source you copy/pasted that from; they argue that homeopathy had about a 2.8% fatality rate in one experiment performed in 1928. Unfortunately, the experiment isn't described and the journal the experiment was reported in seems to have failed, so I can't find a description of the trial. However, the fact that the journal in question was named 'Homœopathy' and that it was done in 1928 makes me seriously doubt that it used controlled double-blind studies.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 The mortality rate for pneumonia is well established, it would be immoral to use double blind studies when the mortality rate from pneumonia can be 30 to 70% when untreated. It was a survey conducted in 1928 among homeopathic physicians reports a death rate of 2.8 percent among 11,526 patients with pneumonia who were treated with pure homeopathy.
BriscoCountyJr23 1 year ago
@BriscoCountyJr23 Double-blind studies are a requirement for getting good information, and there's no negative impact on the health of the patients. I think you mean it would be immoral to use control groups--but in that case, I think you're misunderstanding how controls work. You seem to assume control groups go untreated, but that isn't necessarily the case; controls can get standard care and still serve as a contrast to the test group.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@BriscoCountyJr23 I read the same article on the National Center for Homeopathy's website that you did, so I know just as much about the experiment as you do. The problem is, that isn't enough to judge it's relevance. How were the participants chosen? Location, age-range, diagnostic tests to determine if they actually had pneumonia? If there was a randomly selected control group with much higher fatality rates, that alone would show homeopathy was effective.
Hooya2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BriscoCountyJr23 Yes the 1918 influenza is another good case. Allopaths typically lost 30% of their patients, with most deaths being caused by pneumonia induced by aspirin.
Homeopaths lost typically no patients at all, or only those who had been already given up on by allopathic doctors or those who continued to take aspirin.
"The German Aspirin has killed more people than the German bullets killed.--C. J. Loizeaux, M. D., Des Moines, Iowa. (c1918)
homeopathyforflu(dot)com/dewey.pdf
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@BriscoCountyJr23 The critics of homeopathy can't even understand how homeopathy prescribes one remedy for the total symptom picture. Take Zakie and Hooya for example, they just cannot understand. Allopathic prescribing based on individual symptoms has been so overwhelmingly ingrained in their minds that when homeopathy's treatment of the total symptom picture is explained to them, in terms which any reasonable person would understand, they just cannot understand.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
ive tried homopathic medication and actuputure and that help my allergys better than medicine, however my homopath did state "nothing can cure the cold and you cant take a pill and it will magically go away" even thou i did do biochemical sciences, i think its just one of those things if it works for that person then great. athou i am slightly offended that you compared homopathic remdies to creationism.
dannyboy666999 1 year ago
@dannyboy666999
Well said.
Modern medical science is actually creationist while homeopathy is Darwinian.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@dannyboy666999 Sorry, pseudoscience is pseudoscience.
zakiechan 1 year ago
Go to CBC podcasts THE CURRENT and listen to what is wrong with medical evidence
10/11/10: Pt 3 - Medical Evidence
John Ioaniddis has spent a long time pushing evidence-based medicine. And in the process his faith in how we search for truth has been shaken. Dr. Ioaniddis feels much of what we think we know about medicine is wrong and that much of the information doctors base their treatments on is flawed.
Right click to Download 10/11/10: Pt 3 - Medical Evidence
[mp3 file: runs 27:07]
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
I agree homeopathic medicine is suspicious , but so is chemotherapy . In fact according to the the cancer statistics a cancer patient who recieves chem has about a 6% chance of being alive in 10 years . A cancer patient who recieves NO TREATMENT whatsoever has about a 19% chance of being alive in 10 years . The statistics indicate chemo lessens your chance of surviving chemo . There is a difference between killing a tumor in vitro vs in vivo . Chemo is a scam !
MindofaJedi 1 year ago
Airborne works , according to every study on its ingredients ever done . Why ? Vitamin C strengthens the immune system . Riboflavin , Zinc ,Selenium and Potassium ALL have proven effectiveness in supporting the immune system . These are the ingredients in Airborne . Arguing that Airborne is ineffective is arguing against the AMA and known University studies worldwide . You started the video with a very poor example . If you somehow think the FDA cares about your health , you're on crack .
MindofaJedi 1 year ago
@MindofaJedi Uh, no it doesn't. Just check out the wiki article to read all about it. Airborne now claims to be a dietary supplement, because it could not support it's original claims with any evidence, and was sued for deceptive advertising.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@MindofaJedi I am afraid you are incorrect. Just check out the wiki article to read all about it. Airborne now claims to be a dietary supplement, because it could not support it's original claims with any evidence, and was sued for false advertising.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan Yes it was sued , but I am not incorrect . It works . The ingredients each work on their own and it works as a whole . There is absolutely no question from a scientific point of view that it works . The FDA is VERY interested in making people believe that only pharmaceutical drugs can help people . They even banned trytophan because a "bad batch " killed people in Japan , although this was eventually proven to be a pay off from the makers of Paxil . Peace .
MindofaJedi 1 year ago
@MindofaJedi There are no studies showing that it works. Sorry. You didn't seem to even check out the wiki article.
Once you read that, google "airborne baloney" and read the Scientific American article.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan How does Zakieboy know pharmaceuticalism works?
Zakieboy assumes that a control group exhibiting a single condition can be put together and treated with a single drug.
Zakieboy assumes pharmaceuticalism in order to test pharmaceuticalism.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@den151redbank Agreed. Zakie can't even understand what's been posted.
I explained that homeopathy needs to be tested in the manner it is claimed to work and not in the manner that pharmacists reckon it ought to work, but he cannot understand this. Nor can he produce a single study which has falsified these actual claims of homeopathy.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010
Typical of zakie's ignorance to think that RCT's are the only way to determine homeopathic efficacy.
Of course he can't produce a study which has falsified positive h'pathy results although there are 100's of studies of drugs which have been proven to be falsified. In fact, a study in JAMA found that over 40% of the best designed, peer reviewed scientific papers published in top medical journals misrepresented the actual findings of the research.
den151redbank 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010
Poor zakie.....no matter how hard he tries to stay afloat, the research in h'pathy keeps pulling him back under water. "Using market samples of metal-derived medicines.....we have demonstrated for the first time by Transmission Electron Microscopy, electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES) the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals....."
den151redbank 1 year ago
@den151redbank
This quote is from "Extreme Homeopathy Dilutions Retain Starting Materials: A Nanoparticulate Perspective", a paper by the Department of Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology.
How much longer can zakie keep his head above "water"? (Is that a pun?)
den151redbank 1 year ago
@den151redbank Thanks.
Hey, Zakie posted a herbal study which claimed to prove that echinacea and herbal remedies don't work. I found the experiment and in the results it was admitted that the trial was inconclusive, because "other chemical constituents or combinations of constituents that were not tested in the study could have important biologic effects..(and)..it is also possible, although unlikely, that echinacea is effective for the treatment of respiratory pathogens other than rhinovirus"
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@den151redbank Thank you for actually posting a study! Now, the question is: has this been replicated? If yes, how does this help the claim that like cures like, or that such small traces of a substance will have an effect on a body?
Also, how do you account for the studies that I have already cited?
zakiechan 1 year ago
@den151redbank Wait. It was published in the journal Homeopathy? Sigh. Never mind. Come back when you have a study that was published in a real journal... at least something with a decent impact factor.
Otherwise, its just like creationists making their own journals to publish in.
Again, this is just more evidence of your willingness to accept any sort of garbage, as long as it supports your view.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan
Do you remember our discussion about the nature of evil?
den151redbank 1 year ago
(ii) Botanical Investigations
A number of well-controlled botanical experiments have been performed by homeopathic investigators, the reason perhaps being (as stated by one French physician)- "is there anyone who will claim a placebo effect on plants?"
Kolisko, in 1923, was a pioneer in this field, soaking wheat seeds and others in microdilutions (up to 10 to the power of -30) of such substances as iron sulfate, antimony trioxide, and a double-salt of copper....
farmerjohn010 1 year ago 2
...She found that growth was promoted by the lower dilutions, then inhibited with higher dilutions, and then again stimulated at even higher dilutions. Both measurement and weighing of the shoots gave the same result. Her work continued for decades, and a full report of her experiments was published in 1959.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
She was followed in this by Wilhelm Pelikan Georg Unger who published similar results in 1965.(cite) One of their experiments investigated the effects of microdoses of silver nitrate on the growth of wheat seeds. It tested the effect of 12 different microdoses of siver nitrate (8X to 19X), plus one control, on the germination and sprouting of the seeds; the series was repeated 240 times, and statistical analysis of the results showed the effect of the different potencies....
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
...The length of shoots increased from 8X to 11X, then dropped at 12X, rose again through 13X aND 14X, dropped at 16X, rose at 17X and 18X, and dropped at 19X. Thus the effects of progressively "higher" potencies took the form of a sinusoidal curve.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 I can't find Kolisko's paper. But I did find an article referring to it as a "poorly designed or underpowered study." But really, you can't cite something from within the last couple years?
zakiechan 1 year ago
The great physicist Richard Feynman says that nature will turn out to be how it is. You can't decide how you reckon nature should be, and then design experiments to confirm this.
Go and find me a materials scientist who will support your claim that 30 serial dilutions at 1:100 of any substance (even plutonium) cannot leave behind any clathrates or nanobubbles through the action of epitaxy.
I might add that serial dilutions well over about 200C are not thought to have any effect in homeopathy.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago 2
@farmerjohn010 Feynman also said "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
Denying evidence is not a good method of not fooling yourself.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan Rationalist medical thinkers have denied the existence of a "vital force" apart from, and superior to the organism's physiochemical constituents. They have assumed the identity of organic and inorganic matter in bringing both within the purview of physics, chemistry, and mechanics:
-There is no essential difference between the structural chemistry of life and that of inanimate nature.--Fielding H. Garrison, 1922
.(Harris Coulter - Divided Legacy)
Would you agree with these statements?
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Of course I don't think there is a mystical"vital force."
Yes, there is no difference between the the carbon in a human and a carbon in a wooden chair (structurally speaking). What is important is how the chemistry interacts with other things present in the organism.
zakiechan 1 year ago 3
In his experiments on keratitis produced by a crystalline substance extracted from cultures of staphylococcus aureus, Theodor Leber (1840 - 1917) showed that the leukocytes at a distance were attracted toward the point where this substance had been introduced. On putting some small glass tubes filled with this substance into the anterior chamber of the eye, they became filled with a mass of leukocytes,...
farmerjohn010 1 year ago 4
... although the tubes were so placed that the cells had to move against gravity in order to effect an entry into them.
--Elie Metchnikoff, 1893
This ability to sense where the potential victim is located and to move in that direction ("chemotaxis" or "chemiotaxis") is a mystery: "We still have no explanation, and in fact no good hypothesis, to explain this action at a distance."
--James G. Hirsch, 1959
Quoted in Divided Legacy V4, by Harris L. Coulter
farmerjohn010 1 year ago 4
Coulter writes that physicians sometimes hope that physicists will rescue them from their frustrations and disappointments in the search for ultimate causes. But a real physicist, such as Neils Bohr, views this as vapid and silly: "The closed processes studied in quantum physics are not directly analogous to biological functions...
farmerjohn010 1 year ago 4
...Moreover, any experimental arrangement which would permit control of such functions to the extent demanded for their well defined description in physical terms would be prohibitive to the free display of life. This very circumstance, however, suggests an attitude to the problem of organic life providing a more appropriate balance between a mechanistic and a finalistic approach....
farmerjohn010 1 year ago 5
...In fact, just as the quantum of action appears in the account of atomic phenomena as an element for which an explanation is neither possible nor required, the notion of life is elementary in biological science... The main point is that only by renouncing an explanation of life in the ordinary sense do we gain a possibility of taking into account its characteristics."
Neils Bohr. Quoted by Harris Coulter in Divided Legacy Volume 4
farmerjohn010 1 year ago 5
@farmerjohn010 Nice to see you rely on cutting edge science.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan Coulter is a medical historian. I'm quoting from the history of the conflict between rationalism and vitalism/empiricism.
Besides, Neils Bohr still is at the cutting edge of physics. Find me a single quantum physicist who stands ready to fault him on the above statements.
Come on, what are you waiting for?
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 I have no idea what you are trying to get at. The definition of life is left to the bio chemists, not the physicists. Regardless, I have no idea what point you are trying to make, or what you are arguing for. And Bohr is NOT at the cutting edge of bio chem.
zakiechan 1 year ago 11
@zakiechan I asked you if there was a vital force and you denied it. You said there is no difference between life and inanimate matter.
Neils Bohr observed that biological phenomena are "irreversible," that living organisms "utilize past experience for reactions to future stimuli," and that "quantum phenomena exhibit no feature indicating that an organisation of atoms is able to adapt itself to the surroundings in the ways we witness in the maintenance and evolution of living organisms.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago 2
...Furthermore, it must be stressed that an account, exhaustive in the sense of quantum physics, of all the continually exchanged atoms in the organism not only is infeasible but would obviously require observational conditions incompatible with the display of life."
Sounds like Neils Bohr is talking distinctly about biological systems to me.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago 3
@farmerjohn010 Good lord. I did NOT say that there is no difference between life and inanimate matter. You are either just purposefully lying, or not reading what I wrote. Go back and try again.
Still, I have NO idea what this has to do with evidence for homeopathy.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan Bohr is challenging the very paradigm, the assumptions and tenets upon which biochem is founded. Do you deny that this is what Bohr mean't?
Your ego is actually blocking your science.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 It seems like Bohr is claiming that quantum mechanics cannot account for the behavior of biological systems. But that's a no brainier. QM only works on the Q level.
And I don't get what that has to do with homeopathy. You should just admit that you can't cite any evidence in which homeopathy is shown to work.
zakiechan 1 year ago 2
@zakiechan If you can't understand Bohr's language that's your problem not mine. Bohr is intentionally and deliberately undermining the very foundation of medical science and biochemistry. Read his statements again.
I asked you above specifically if you agreed with the rationalist concept that life can be reduced to chemical equations, and with rationalism's belief in the identity of organic and inorganic matter as stated above, and you agreed.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 I understood Bohr, I just failed to see the relevance.
I told you that yes, the molecules of say carbon in a chair and a person are the same. But that doesn't mean that everything else about them is the same. Different processes are going on in living organisms.
zakiechan 1 year ago 2
@zakiechan So you accept the existence of the vital force, over and apart from material matter?
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Please quote what I said that would suggest to you I accept a 17th century view of science.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan Zakie wants to know what he said that would suggest to me that he accepts a 17th century view of science (The vital force is presumably what he mean't)
He said he understood (and presumably accepted) Neils Bohr. That is the answer. If he accepts Bohr's statements, then he agrees with Bohr on the existence of the vital force.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
Truth is Zakie can't understand what's been posted.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@zakiechan you fucking retard. That's not at all what Bohr said.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@zakiechan Oh you mean't the chemiotaxis, which still cannot be explained. Funny that.
Your science has skipped past an apparent impossibility, impracticality or self-contradiction of your currently favored theory by assuming that the problem can somehow be fixed or circumvented or explained at some later date.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 No, you are just relying on 100 year old science. Just go to wikipedia. You are also relying on a false dichotomy: "If bio can't currently explain it, then the vital force is right."
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan Smartypants, you can start explaining how the leucocytes went against gravity to fill the empty glass tubes in Elie Metchnikoff's experiment of 1893.
I'm waiting.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago 2
@farmerjohn010 I have a friend who is a PhD biochem student. I showed her your posts, she was quite taken aback, and said that you seem to have no idea what you are talking about, and are confusing your own ignorance for a scientific mystery... All that stuff is all well explained.
She then went on in some detail of how it worked, but I didn't really understand it. Though, she never used the term "vital force", and wasn't even sure what that meant, since it never appears in the literature.
zakiechan 1 year ago 2
@zakiechan Better get the biochemist to start explaining fast, and I only quoted Neils Bohr, so your biochemist friend believes that Neils Bohr is confusing his own ignorance for a scientific mystery!
Either you accept the vital force or you do not. You believe that life is reducible to physical, chemical mechanistic terms or you do not. You believe that life is no different from inanimate matter or you do not. You agree with Bohr's observations or you do not. You can't go halfway.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@zakiechan Your PhD biochemist student friend is pretty dumb, because as I indicated, I copied verbatim from Coulter's medical history text the accounts of Theodor Leber's experiment proving the action at a distance of leukocytes as reported by Elie Metchnikoff in 1893, and the conclusions of James G. Hirsch in 1959.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Wait... since an actual biochemist knows way more about the topic than a scientist from 100 years ago, that makes her dumb?
FJ010, this is an absurd waste of my time, and I have no idea why I have even bothered to respond to your insane, incoherent, confused, paranoid posts for so long. I am done.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan so where is your biochemist's explanation to explain the action at a distance of leukocytosis?
This is entirely relevant to homeopathy. You have also arrogantly dismissed Neils Bohr's observations on the vital force.
Truth is you cannot even understand what has been posted.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@zakiechan Hey shitforbrains, the comments weren't mine. I've consistently stated that I simply copied them from Harris Coulter's Divided Legacy. That's my point, you and your biochemist friend seem to be incapable of grasping this.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Quotes from over 50 years ago... join us in the 21st century please. Scientists are well aware of how chemotaxis works--chemical gradients in the body induce cells to move toward or away from the source. For example, formyl peptides, which are released from dying cells and some bacteria, attract white blood cells.
We also know how cells move, even against gravity; it's called pseudopodia, where the cell extends and contracts using it's skeleton of actin proteins.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 Your scientific "truths" are only truths for today. This is a problem for your rationalist medicine. All of your textbooks need to be rewritten every ten years or so, and what was accepted yesterday as scientific truth, is tomorrow consigned to the rubbish bin.
Homeopathy and vitalism are true for all time.
You have not explained chemiotaxis or how the leukocytes moved against gravity when not in contact with any chemical.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@Hooya2
If you said magnetism works because opposite polarities attract each other and you reckoned that was a sufficient explanation for magnetism, then you would be wrong, because that is an insufficient explanation for magnetism.
This is what you are doing for your chemiotaxis, that is, oversimplification to the point of being wrong.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 They moved 'against gravity' by using pseudopods in a liquid environment--it's like swimming. They were in contact with chemicals; according to how you described the experiment, the glass tubes containing the whatever-it-was from the staph bacteria were open, meaning the fluid in the eye would have entered the tubes. That fluid would doubtless have eroded some of the substance, allowing it to enter the body and be 'smelled' by the leukocytes.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
So the leukocytes "smell" it do they? and then they presumanly "decide" where to go to do battle! I suggested exactly this in a fearsome argument with a neurobiologist "tj2mag" on exactly this topic on the other "Dawkins versus Homeopath- Irrational Health Service" youtube video, now removed.
Ferociously, he made exactly the opposite argument you are now making! And I gave the vitalist explanation that you now seem to be moving towards.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Yes, they 'smell' it; the formyl receptors on the surface of the cell membrane pick up the formyl peptides emitted by the bacterial substance, and the chemical cascades caused by the detection of formyl peptides induces the outer shell of the membrane to grow and contract, moving it through the body. Don't pretend like this type of reaction is in any way vitalism, because you know very well what I'm describing is purely reductionist physics, even if I short-hand it as 'smell'.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 Bullshit!
Do you suppose Coulter also faked Neils Bohr's comments on the vital force?
Neils Bohr observed that biological phenomena are "irreversible," that living organisms "utilize past experience for reactions to future stimuli," and that "quantum phenomena exhibit no feature indicating that an organisation of atoms is able to adapt itself to the surroundings in the ways we witness in the maintenance and evolution of living organisms....
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 He might very well have--I'm not entirely sure what Bohr was trying to say in those quotes. What does he mean by 'irreversible' in this context? What does he mean when he says that quantum phenomena don't appear to be capable of organizing that way--that it's simply counter-intuitive that quantum systems could be that complex and continuous, or that there is some genuine discontinuity?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
If you can't understand the physicists words then why are you so big headed?
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 I'm 'big-headed' because I know what I'm talking about; I know that we do have a biochemical explanation for chemotaxis, and I know that biology has had remarkable success in breaking life down to pure (if complicated) physics, with no vitalistic force.
My lack of understanding derives primarily from poor contextualization; it's clear from phrases like 'In fact' and 'The main point' that these quotes are summaries of a more complicated viewpoint.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 Yes you have a super-massive ego like Zakie. He also tried to rewrite what he thought Neils Bohr should have said.
Inquiring and objective minds like Bohr's and Coulter's is what you fuckers are short of.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Was there an argument in there? You criticize me for thinking I have the answers, but you haven't poked holes in the answers I've given. You imply my hypothesis isn't testable, but all you have to do to test it is place a leukocyte in a chemically neutral environment and place a bacteria in an isolated solution nearby. If chemotaxis is driven by chemical gradient, the leukocyte won't move; if it's some magical power of attraction or action at a distance, it will.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 There'll be other mechanisms besides biochemical. The body has electrical as well as quantum effects. Your experiment only proves that you have made a biased assumption that there can only be one possible method, and this is the premise you are starting from.
Zakieboy says you can't "assume homeopathy in order to test homeopathy." But this is absurd.
From Popper, "Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions."
What "riskier" way is there to test homeopath
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 This rebuttal is so incoherent, I doubt you understood what I was saying. The test I proposed was a way to test the theory that chemical gradients are what induces motion. Clearly, the experiment is risky; if the leukocytes move toward the bacteria when it's chemically isolated from the bacteria, then the chemical gradient theory is wrong. If it is true that there are other mechanisms besides biochem, then we can expect the leukocyte to move, and I'll be proven wrong.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 No I was referring to Zakie's rebuttal of good trials constructed to test the actual claims of homeopathy. This is the most logical, the most risky and the most agreed upon method by homeopaths of testing the theories of homeopathy.
We are limited to 500 words and perhaps I didn't make clear that I had moved on to another related subject.
Now with your chemical isolation you may also isolate quantum effects and electrical impulses. How does your experiment show that this is not the case?
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
Zakieboy says you can't assume homeopathy in order to test homeopathy.
Karl Popper writes "With Einstein's theory the situation was strikingly different...the impressive thing was the risk involved in the prediction [of the amount by which light should be bent by gravity]. The theory was incompatible with certain possible results of observations -in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected."
Einstein assumed light would be bent by gravity and then he tested it.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 You shouldn't assume something to be true prior to testing it. If you assume it is true, your results may be biased. Of course, you also shouldn't assume it's false, for the same reason. You make predictions of what the world would be like if it were true, and then test those predictions; that's not the same as assuming it's true.
Nothing in what Karl Popper wrote implies that Einstein assumed relativity was true before testing it.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 Zakiechan, who is another shit for brains like you, says the claims of homeopathy cannot be tested because that means you would have to "assume homeopathy to test homeopathy."
Those were his words not mine.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 I don't know if you're lying or if you just genuinely can't understand what other people are saying, but Zakiechan didn't say that claims of homeopathy can't be tested. Indeed, he's said repeatedly that they have been and have failed the tests. He did say that you can't assume homeopathy is true to test homeopathy, but that doesn't imply homeopathy can't be tested at all, it just has to be tested skeptically, like every other idea in science.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 Zakieboy says homeopathy must not be tested in the manner it is claimed to work by homeopaths, but that it must instead be tested in the manner in which it would suit pharmaceuticalists for homeopathy to work.
Homeopathy treats symptom totality. You cannot treat one symptom. You can't say this pill is for asthma, this one for cancer. Fifty asthma patients may get fifty different remedies. Homeopaths like George Vithoulkas are perfectly willing to put homeopathy to the appropriate tests.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 There are only 2 possibilities here--either every patient requires different treatment, in which case homeopathy is so complicated it's incomprehensible and all homeopaths are frauds, or there are some predictable patterns, and some patients with the same symptoms can be treated in similar ways. If there is an underlying pattern, then it can be tested in pharmaceutical studies.
Hooya2 1 year ago
Comment removed
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@Hooya2 The third possibility is of course that you are an ignorant moron who knows nothing about homeopathic methodology and prescribing.
A moron who condemns that about which he knows nothing.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 What, now I get nothing but insults? Look, I think we both know that I'm not stupid, and I'm fairly well-informed on the topic. Your errors in communication aren't my problem.
If I'm wrong in regards to homeopathic methodology, tell me where? Are there underlying patterns, or aren't there? If there are, why can't they be tested in clinical trials? If I'm wrong in regards to the experiment, tell me where? Would my test not falsify chemical gradients?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 You couldn't understand my simple questions and you reckon you understand Neils Bohr.
You admit that you don't know anything at all about homeopathic methodology and you reckon you want me to explain it. Well I've been attempting to explain it to you all along, in the manner that it needs to be tested, but you have a simple mindset and you cannot grasp any of the concepts.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Another useless post. I'm ignoring your insults, but I'll say this: nowhere in our discussion have you once made an attempt to explain the methodology of homeopathy or described test of it. If I'm wrong, then copy/paste a quote from a comment you've made to me in the past that addresses that point.
I would appreciate it if you did address that, or my experiment, or why homeopathy can't be tested in clinical trials.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 Well I said
"Homeopathy treats symptom totality. You cannot treat one symptom. You can't say this pill is for asthma, this one for cancer. Fifty asthma patients may get fifty different remedies. Homeopaths like George Vithoulkas are perfectly willing to put homeopathy to the appropriate tests."
And you responded by saying that homeopathy is far too complicated.
I've never said that homeopathy cannot be tested, only that the methodology of pharmaceutical testing is wrong.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 That doesn't explain the methodology of homeopathy, or describe a test for it. And my response was not a claim that homeopathy is far too complicated; I said that IF every patient requires a different treatment, then homeopathy is too complicated for everyone to understand. Are you saying that is the case, and every single patient if homeopathy needs a different treatment?
If pharmaceutical testing is wrong, then explain why, and put forward a test you think would be valid.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 You are supposed to already know. Here you are condemning homeopathy and you don't know anything at all about it. Go to Vithoulkas website and read the experiment he has advocated which James Randi has renigged on.
Simply put, in homeopathy a patient's total symptom picture is taken and then one remedy is prescribed. Think of resonance. You have find the most similar symptom picture and then prescribe the remedy from the materia medica which exactly describes all the symptoms together.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 How would I know? Homeopathy is hardly a unified field; plenty of you lot have conflicting views of what proper tests are. You're going to have to be more specific on where I can find the test description on Vithoulkas' site, or, better yet, summarize it here!
But from your description, the trials are done EXACTLY like how a normal clinical trial works. You find patients who have a common set of symptoms, and give them the same treatment.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 If you bothered reading the posts below between me and Zakieboy you would have already seen me describe the manner in which tests can be conducted appropriately in accordance with homeopathic teachings. Zakieboy renigs on this just like James Randi.
You can go to sonicfoundry(dot)com/uconn and listen to Iris Bell, who is about the fourth speaker in this international homeopathy debate, lay out how tests should be conducted and some of the results to date.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 I'd rather not sift through hundreds of old comments, or watch a two hour presentation, when it's so much easier to just ask you for a quick summary--especially since I'm more interested in what you're thinking now than in what another homeopath said, or what you said weeks ago.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2 No more excuses. You can listen to Iris Bell by simply watching youtube "International Homeopathy Debate II"
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@Hooya2 Rustum Roy, the materials scientist, is the second speaker who presents his evidence of the spectroscopic distinctions between homeopathic remedies at the conference, and predictably you cannot be bothered to listen.
sonicfoundry(dot)com/uconn
farmerjohn010 1 year ago