Recreational drugs FAR less likely to kill than prescribed drugs!

[J’raxis 270145]

... homeopathy has never been disproven in a scientifically valid manner.

It doesn't have to be. Those who assert homeopathy is true have the burden of proof placed upon them. And an awful lot of studies have been done; here's a nice summary:—

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Medical_and_scientific_analysis

The excerpt you link to says nothing except what others on this thread have said: "Homeopathy doesn't work because I cannot understand how it would be possible."  This is not science.  Science does not discount observations because the current theory doesn't predict them.  Science discards theories when they don't predict observations, and the theory that homeopathy doesn't work fails to explain the numerous studies where homeopathy has been shown to be effective (unsurprisingly not mentioned in the wikipedia article).  Detractors simply dismiss those studies, saying it's a placebo effect.  Okay, fine. 

This is a mischaracterization of the placebo-effect rebuttal. People aren't dismissing a positive study after the fact by saying it was "actually just the placebo effect" or somesuch. Several studies have been done comparing the numbers of people being cured by homeopathic medicine to the number of people "being cured" by taking a placebo, and shown them to be the same. There are some studies that show homeopathy to be possibly effective, but they've had other problems that call them into question (see below).

Anyone who thinks it's placebo can prove me wrong by taking my challenge: take sulphur 200C for 90 days and then come tell me it's a placebo.

That's called an anecdote, not scientific data. If one does do this, and is cured from whatever this sulphur 200C claims to cure, there is no way to tell if it was homeopathy in action, or the placebo effect.

And I'll repeat what I said before, wikipedia is anything but a reliable source of information on any controversial issue.  The articles say whatever the person with the most spare time wants them to say.

You don't know how to use Wikipedia. For example:—

The medical effectiveness of homeopathy has been a point of contention since its inception, and researchers have subjected the system to close scrutiny. One of the earliest studies concerning homeopathic medicine was sponsored by the British government during World War II in which volunteers tested the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies against diluted mustard gas burns.[126] More recent controlled clinical trials on homeopathy have shown poor results, showing slight-to-no differences between homeopathic remedies and placebo.[127]

"126" and "127" are references to other resources. #127 links to this which is excerpted from a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine research report, which includes this section:—

8. What has scientific research found out about whether homeopathy works?

This section summarizes results from (1) individual clinical trials (research studies in people) and (2) broad analyses of groups of clinical trials.

The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo.f Appendix I details findings from clinical trials.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses take a broader look at collections of a set of results from clinical trials.g Recent examples of these types of analyses are detailed in Appendix II. In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. Two groups of authors listed in Appendix II found some positive evidence in the groups of studies they examined, and they did not find this evidence to be explainable completely as placebo effects (a third group found 1 out of 16 trials to have some added effect relative to placebo). Each author or group of authors criticized the quality of evidence in the studies. Examples of problems they noted include weaknesses in design and/or reporting, choice of measuring techniques, small numbers of participants, and difficulties in replicating results. A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition.

f. A placebo is designed to resemble as much as possible the treatment being studied in a clinical trial, except that the placebo is inactive. An example of a placebo is a pill containing sugar instead of the drug or other substance being studied. By giving one group of participants a placebo and the other group the active treatment, the researchers can compare how the two groups respond and get a truer picture of the active treatment's effects. In recent years, the definition of placebo has been expanded to include other things that could have an effect on the results of health care, such as how a patient and a health care provider interact, how a patient feels about receiving the care, and what he or she expects to happen from the care.

g. In a systematic review, data from a set of studies on a particular question or topic are collected, analyzed, and critically reviewed. A meta-analysis uses statistical techniques to analyze results from individual studies.

[J’raxis 270145]

Mackler,

Why even bother with Jraxi? If he had it is way the pharm companies wouldnt have to even "attempt to "test" their products for safety and side effcts. They could just claim his ridiculous  assinine "theory of "innocent until proven guilty."
LOL!

That's right—but that's because I don't believe the State has any business forcing the pharmaceutical manufacturers, or anyone else for that matter, to test their products. You do?

To be honest, I'm surprised my POV isn't more prevalent in libertarian communities.

Yeah, this has surprised me as well as Big Gov and "Big Medicine" are one in the same. It is quite hypocritical, to say the least, when a large number of folks here in this forum support this quackery called "modern medicine" aka allopathic medicine.

Sounds to me like you don't like Big Medicine, but you like Big Government just fine.

[Dylboz]

Wouldn't the 1M have a stronger effect than the 200C according to the dilution hypothesis?

Yes, the so-called "law of infinitesimals" means the less I take, the more effective it should be. If the "effective ingredient" in a relatively strong homeopathic remedy, say 30C, were 12 drops of liquid, like a pipette or the average eyedropper, there is not enough water in the known universe to get to that level of dilution. If we shrink that down to one atom, there is not enough water on earth to get there. This is a pre-atomic idea, and once atomic chemistry was understood, homeopaths invented "water memory" to get around it. See below:

Many people confuse homeopathy with herbalism and do not realise just how far homeopathic remedies are diluted. The typical dilution is called "30C": this means that the original substance has been diluted by 1 drop in 100, 30 times. On the Society of Homeopaths site, in their "What is homeopathy?" section, they say that "30C contains less than 1 part per million of the original substance."

This is an understatement: a 30C homeopathic preparation is a dilution of 1 in 10030, or rather 1 in 1060, which means a 1 followed by 60 zeroes, or - let's be absolutely clear - a dilution of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000.

To phrase that in the Society of Homeopaths' terms, we should say: "30C contains less than one part per million million million million million million million million million million of the original substance."

At a homeopathic dilution of 100C, which they sell routinely, and which homeopaths claim is even more powerful than 30C, the treating substance is diluted by more than the total number of atoms in the universe. Homeopathy was invented before we knew what atoms were, or how many there are, or how big they are. It has not changed its belief system in light of this information.

How can an almost infinitely dilute solution cure anything? Most homeopaths claim that water has "a memory". They are unclear what this would look like, and homeopaths' experiments claiming to demonstrate it are frequently bizarre. As a brief illustration, American magician and debunker James Randi has for many years had a $1m prize on offer for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities. He has made it clear that this cheque would go to someone who can reliably distinguish a homeopathic dilution from water. His money remains unclaimed.

Many homeopaths also claim they can transmit homeopathic remedies over the internet, in CDs, down the telephone, through a computer, or in a piece of music. Peter Chappell, whose work will feature at a conference organised by the Society of Homeopaths next month, makes dramatic claims about his ability to solve the Aids epidemic using his own homeopathic pills called "PC Aids", and his specially encoded music. "Right now," he says, "Aids in Africa could be significantly ameliorated by a simple tune played on the radio."

(Emphasis added)

I repeat, homeopathy is absurd. Sulfur 200C has no sulfur in it. People don't understand how homeopathy works because it doesn't work. There is nothing to understand. When nothing happens to me, are you gonna cal me a liar, or blame coffee or Altoids? I mean, my blood pressure pills aren't invalidated by my diet, why is homeopathy? Could it be because you need an out to blame when water has no effect whatever?

[kola]

jraxi, sound like you are clueless ...as usual. LOL

dlyan, I know very little about homeopathy and have never used it therefor i have no opinion on homeopathy at this time.

[Dylboz]

sound like you are clueless ...as usual. LOL

Clueless about what, exactly? What should I have a clue about? Do you not understand that dilution to homeopathic levels means that there is actually nothing in there? No detectable amount of the substance claimed? It's water, Kola. Just. Plain. Water.

[Dylboz]

Anyone who thinks it's placebo can prove me wrong by taking my challenge: take sulphur 200C for 90 days and then come tell me it's a placebo.

That's called an anecdote, not scientific data. If one does do this, and is cured from whatever this sulphur 200C claims to cure, there is no way to tell if it was homeopathy in action, or the placebo effect.

No no! What he claims is, if we DON'T have whatever Sulfur 200C claims to cure, WE WILL GET IT!!!! No easier way has ever existed to disprove that. I think it's supposed to cure baldness and skin rashes, so my hair should fall out and I should be covered in boils at the end of 3 months. When this DOESN'T HAPPEN, homeopathy is disproved. YAY! Join me, J'raxis!

Homeopathy Challenge

[J’raxis 270145]

Yes, the so-called "law of infinitesimals" means the less I take, the more effective it should be. If the "effective ingredient" in a relatively strong homeopathic remedy, say 30C, were 12 drops of liquid, like a pipette or the average eyedropper, there is not enough water in the known universe to get to that level of dilution. If we shrink that down to one atom, there is not enough water on earth to get there. This is a pre-atomic idea, and once atomic chemistry was understood, homeopaths invented "water memory" to get around it. See below:

Indeed. This isn't a scientific argument against homeopathy (the subatomic memory theory could be true), but it calls into question the honesty of the proponents of an idea when they keep changing the theory behind it, simply in order to keep the idea alive.

[J’raxis 270145]

Anyone who thinks it's placebo can prove me wrong by taking my challenge: take sulphur 200C for 90 days and then come tell me it's a placebo.

That's called an anecdote, not scientific data. If one does do this, and is cured from whatever this sulphur 200C claims to cure, there is no way to tell if it was homeopathy in action, or the placebo effect.

No no! What he claims is, if we DON'T have whatever Sulfur 200C claims to cure, WE WILL GET IT!!!! No easier way has ever existed to disprove that. I think it's supposed to cure baldness and skin rashes, so my hair should fall out and I should be covered in boils at the end of 3 months. When this DOESN'T HAPPEN, homeopathy is disproved. YAY! Join me, J'raxis!

Homeopathy Challenge

Looks like this stuff will cure damn near everything. It claims it'll even make your shit not stink.

[kola]

sound like you are clueless ...as usual. LOL

Clueless about what, exactly? What should I have a clue about? Do you not understand that dilution to homeopathic levels means that there is actually nothing in there? No detectable amount of the substance claimed? It's water, Kola. Just. Plain. Water.

I was speaking to J RAX. I know very little about homeopathy and at this point in my life I have no interest in it. The door is still open though. So Dylan, that goes against your past assumption you made about me where you think I blindly accept anything that is alternative, "just becuz". (i forget your exact wording).

Kola

[Dylboz]

Wow, if I take it and get all that shit, I'll be dead in 3 months! This is quite a test!

[J’raxis 270145]

As for the alternatives, homeopathy is absurd, non-scientific and utterly useless. It has been discredited over and over and over again. But, since it's just essentially drinking water, it's not overtly harmful, unless substituted for real medicine. Imagining that 1 part per billion of some "opposite" chemical can stimulate resistance to disease is plain stupid. It is exactly as effective as the placebo in every study it's been used in.

I do not understanding how someone who rejects modern Western medicines can possibly believe in homeopathy. It is modern Western medicine: It was invented in the late eighteenth century by a scientist using scientific methods. And it has since been discredited, by other scientists using scientific methods. Accepting homeopathy means accepting the premises of modern Western medicine, but only applying them arbitrarily.

I don't know who you're directing that to.  I have never classified modalities by whether they're "western" or not.  Homeopathy is not allopathy, and allopathy is not homeopathy.  Accepting one does not necessitate accepting or rejecting the other.

Western medicine, modern medicine, and allopathic medicine are generally regarded as synonyms, which, interestingly, would place homeopathy under the ægis of allopathy, since it was, when originally invented, a theory of modern medicine. Of course, since allopathy was a term invented by the founder of homeopathy to basically mean all of modern medicine except his invention, this makes Western medicine and modern medicine synonymous with what you mean by allopathy.

[mackler]

When nothing happens to me, are you gonna cal me a liar, or blame coffee or Altoids?

I don't know.  Depends on how much coffee you drink.  Also depends on how many other people are participating in this experiment and what happens to them.  Like I said, if I don't actually see you taking it, then I don't really know if you took or not.

But listen, I understand that there's a very long list of extreme symptoms associated with this particular medicine.  If you want to back out of this experiment, I won't hold it against you.

[Dylboz]

When nothing happens to me, are you gonna cal me a liar, or blame coffee or Altoids?

I don't know.  Depends on how much coffee you drink.  Also depends on how many other people are participating in this experiment and what happens to them.  Like I said, if I don't actually see you taking it, then I don't really know if you took or not.

But listen, I understand that there's a very long list of extreme symptoms associated with this particular medicine.  If you want to back out of this experiment, I won't hold it against you.

Absolutely not. No way I'm backing out, I told you, it's just water. Even Homeopaths agree it's just water, but they say it has "memory." Water never hurt anyone. The pills are just lactose, milk sugar pills. I'm not lactose intolerant, so I'll be fine. There is no detectable amount of sulfur in these things (not that sulfur is toxic, it's in eggs and garlic, both of which I eat a lot of), either the water solution or the pills. I only hope that once this is over, you understand that these are placebos, and get your ass to a real doctor next time you're sick.

[NJLiberty]

I'm in. I don't see anything harmful in taking a little sulphur, it occurs naturally in any number of foods and is something the body needs anyway. I'll let you all know when my supply arrives.

George

[kola]

Dylan

.......and get your ass to a real doctor next time you're sick.

ROFL!
Kola