Mainly OT - human joint supplements?
RPM1
Are any of you more <ahem> seasoned adults taking supplements that aren't a complete waste of money?
Patrick is fencing/epee twice a week and he really loves it but it's really hard work and it's hard on the hips and shoulders. He fenced last night and woke up a little twitchy in his leading hip this morning.
Do any of you take supplements for joint health which really work? If so, what?
TIA
RCM
Ruth Baltopoulos
>I know a lot of folks give joint supplements to your ObHorseys.
>Are any of you more <ahem> seasoned adults taking supplements that aren't a
>complete waste of money?
Well, I can't offer conclusively that I'm not living in a placebo-induced
haze, but I have been taking a glucosamine/chondroiton supplement that I buy
from Trader Joe's for about a year now. (I find most of their vitamins and
supplements to be very reasonably priced).
I have had joint issues (shoulders, elbows, wrists) for a few years and I
feel like I feel quite improved :)
--
Ruth B
Grizzly
taking along with high quality fish oil for inflammation, and of course
Vicodin when it really kicks up during cold weather..Before the
supplements I had really limited joint mobility and a lot of stiffness,
I still move like the mummy, but a bit looser than before..arthritis is
just one of the aggravating parts of getting older..my guess is that
most of us who work with horses tend to wear ourselves out..
Tom & Win
A number of years ago, maybe ten, I was having a really hard time
opening jars and my knees were painful, etc. I started taking Move Free
by Schiff and in a few weeks felt much improved. I still take it and I
think it is still helping. I can still open jars :-). Since I am ten?
years older my joints are older, too, but so far I haven't had to stop
doing anything. Kneeling down and getting back up is a challenge. :-o
Winnie
Dave Smith
I take them and they seem to help. I used to go skiing every week
during the winter and after a few hours my right knee felt strange. It
wasn't pain so much as just not feeling reliable. Then when I went on a
self defence course at work something happened. It was painful and
needed to be iced and bandaged. For weeks after that it was pain free
but if I sat or laid down for any period of time it would get stiff and
sore. I started taking Glucosimine Sulphate. Within a few days it would
be like new. After a few months it would start acting up again and a few
days of the Glucosimine it would clear up again. About a year ago I
started taking Replenex from Melaluca and have had no problems at all.
J. Z. M.
> A number of years ago, maybe ten, I was having a really hard time
> opening jars and my knees were painful, etc. I started taking Move Free
> by Schiff and in a few weeks felt much improved.
LOL How do you open the jars with your knees? :)))) You guys are making me
laugh a great deal about your subjects lately.
AS for the supplements, I take Lubrisyn. It helps. MHO if the arthritis is
bad enough nothing helps. My knee is case in point. I have a big choice to
make: be a cripple or have it replaced eventually. Getting old is a bitch,
even if you can still open jars with your knees.
Jody
jmc
I recently started taking the liquid Glucosamine/Chonodroitin/MSM
supplement from Vitamin Shoppe, and it does seem to help. Bloody big
bottle, but lasts about two months, if taken once/day per label
directions (2TBS/day, I think).
Doesn't taste too horrid, and easier for me to take than either the big
horse pills, or the multitude of smaller pills. And it doesn't taste
too bad - sort of like cough syrup.
jmc
Hunter Hampton
<NOnewsgr...@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote:
>
>I recently started taking the liquid Glucosamine/Chonodroitin/MSM
>supplement from Vitamin Shoppe, and it does seem to help.
Point it out please....
Hunter
jmc
http://www.vitaminshoppe.com/store/en/browse/sku_detail.jsp?id=VS-2414
searched on "liquid glucosamine" instead :)
jmc
Cricket
"RPM1" <rp...@earthlinkdeleteme.net> wrote in message
news:gckt55$vc$1...@aioe.org...
TIA
RCM
Besides ibuprofen? (The farrier's fifth food group)...I take fairly massive
quantities of glucosamin, chondritin, and MSM in a three-way supplement I
get cheap at Meijer's.
RPM1
> quantities of glucosamin, chondritin, and MSM in a three-way supplement I
> get cheap at Meijer's.
We've decided to make sure he stays well hydrated and avoids getting overly lean [which he already is]. He already walks miles and miles behind a Skagg mower so maybe just some strength training with weights will help. Furthering those muscles for fencing by - well - fencing will, no doubt, help as well.
Some studies say that MSM and the like might not help. I just want to be sure they don't hurt. Small doses should be okay.
RCM
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
> Small doses should be okay.
The smaller the better for homeopathy. In fact the more non-existent
the dose the more efficacious in that case.
Folks think it's kidding around saying that. You can't make this stuff up.
sharon
Cricket
I can tell the difference when I'm virtuous about it, and when I slack
off...but like any other supplement, the reactions to it are probably quite
individual.
Cricket
RCM
Cricket
"Ocean of Nuance" <lizzardw...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6leaiiF...@mid.individual.net...
The thing with gluscosamine, et al, is that it isn't suppose to so much
"have an effect", as serve as building blocks for joint repair. Homeopathy
depends on small amounts of substances that would have a specific effect
like what is being treated...MSM etc. is just "building materials" for the
body to work with, so I can't imagine that less could be more in this case
(not real convinced on homeopathy anyway, just thinking this is apples and
oranges anyway).
Cricket
Ocean of Nuance
AFAIK, homeopathists admit the number of serial dilutions they do will
result in no solute molecules in the final solution. This can be
calculated knowing the dilution, the concentration, and Avogadro's number.
The claim, AFAIK, is that the claimed efficacy is derived from the
"memory" of the solute molecules by the water molecules.
It's why homeopathy can be the spokesmodel for paranormal modalities.
It's not that they claim the effect is empirical... it's that we know
without a doubt it can't work as claimed under known P-chem laws. They
will need to discover new ones for it to work according to the claimed
mechanism.
Perhaps you are thinking of "tinctures" which are tiny amounts of solute
in solution.
sharon
Judie
I take the MoveFree also. I don't have arthritis but I noticed that I
hardly ever get sore, and if I do, the soreness goes away after a day
or two. I also think that it helps skin, I think that my face is less
droopy since I have been taking it. I like the MoveFree because not
only does it have Glucosamine, Chondroitin and MSM, it is one of the
only ones I have seen that also has Hyaluronic Acid.
Judie
Citizen Jimserac
wrote:
> Cricket wrote:
> > "Ocean of Nuance" <lizzardwomanRM...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:6leaiiF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> RPM1 wrote:
>
> >> (snip)
>
> >>> Small doses should be okay.
> >> dose the more efficacious in that case.
>
> >> Folks think it's kidding around saying that. You can't make this stuff
> >> up.
>
> >> sharon
>
> > The thing with gluscosamine, et al, is that it isn't suppose to so much
> > "have an effect", as serve as building blocks for joint repair. Homeopathy
> > depends on small amounts of substances that would have a specific effect
> > like what is being treated...MSM etc. is just "building materials" for the
> > body to work with, so I can't imagine that less could be more in this case
> > oranges anyway).
>
> AFAIK, homeopathists admit the number of serial dilutions they do will
> result in no solute molecules in the final solution. This can be
> calculated knowing the dilution, the concentration, and Avogadro's number.
>
> The claim, AFAIK, is that the claimed efficacy is derived from the
> "memory" of the solute molecules by the water molecules.
>
> It's not that they claim the effect is empirical... it's that we know
> without a doubt it can't work as claimed under known P-chem laws. They
> will need to discover new ones for it to work according to the claimed
> mechanism.
>
> Perhaps you are thinking of "tinctures" which are tiny amounts of solute
> in solution.
>
> sharon
Paranormal modalities?
Pardon me?
"...it's that we know without a doubt it can't work as claimed under
known P-chem laws"...
Pardon me again, but there are REAL SCIENTISTS working on the
possible mechanisms
of Homeopathy in order to understand its overwhelming clinical success
in treating
a wide variety of diseases and illnesses over two centuries.
In addition, you would require universal and omniscient knowledge in
order
to be able to make such a statment "that we know without a doubt"...
Recent research, for example by M. Ennis published in Inflammation
Research
in which she repeats the experiments of a French researcher, confirm
the
reality and experimental confirmation of biological action stimulated
by
a substance diluted beyond containing any atoms of the stimulant.
I repeat, however curious the possibility of Homeopathy's modus
operandi
may appear to you, it is insufficient grounds for telling anyone
anything
about it without considering the research in progress as well as the
strong
results in its favour.
Citizen Jimserac
Ocean of Nuance
(oh man)
> Pardon me again, but there are REAL SCIENTISTS working on the
> possible mechanisms
> of Homeopathy in order to understand its overwhelming clinical success
> in treating
> a wide variety of diseases and illnesses over two centuries.
And the peer-reviewed proof of same apart from placebo can be found where?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
"Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the National Center for
Complementary and Alternative Medicine, says homeopathy "goes beyond
current understanding of chemistry and physics." He adds: "There is, to
my knowledge, no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be an
effective treatment."[13]"
> In addition, you would require universal and omniscient knowledge in
> order
> to be able to make such a statement "that we know without a doubt"...
>
> Recent research, for example by M. Ennis published in Inflammation
> Research
> in which she repeats the experiments of a French researcher, confirm
> the
> reality and experimental confirmation of biological action stimulated
> by
> a substance diluted beyond containing any atoms of the stimulant.
From the same wiki page...
---------
Research on effects in other biological systems
Old homeopathic belladonna remedy.
Old homeopathic belladonna remedy.
While some articles have suggested that homeopathic solutions of high
dilution can have statistically significant effects on organic processes
including the growth of grain,[147] histamine release by
leukocytes,[148] and enzyme reactions, such evidence is disputed since
attempts to replicate them have failed.[149][150][151][152][153]
In 1987, French immunologist Jacques Benveniste submitted a paper to the
journal Nature while working at INSERM. The paper purported to have
discovered that basophils released histamine when exposed to a
homeopathic dilution of anti-immunoglobulin E, a type of white blood
cell. The journal editors, sceptical of the results, requested that the
study be replicated in a separate laboratory. Upon replication in four
separate laboratories the study was published. Still sceptical of the
findings, Nature assembled an independent investigative team to
determine the accuracy of the research, consisting of Nature editor and
physicist Sir John Maddox, American scientific fraud investigator and
chemist Walter Stewart, and sceptic and magician James Randi. After
investigating the findings and methodology of the experiment, the team
found that the experiments were "statistically ill-controlled",
"interpretation has been clouded by the exclusion of measurements in
conflict with the claim", and concluded, "We believe that experimental
data have been uncritically assessed and their imperfections
inadequately reported."[154][155][156] James Randi stated that he
doubted that there had been any conscious fraud, but that the
researchers had allowed "wishful thinking" to influence their
interpretation of the data.[155]
-----------
Citizen Jimserac
wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:
Excuse me, the research I am talking about was originally done by
the French researcher Jean Sainte-Laudy, and was repeated
by English pharmaceutical researcher M. Ennis and published
in the journal Inflammation Research vol 53, page 181.
Subsequent research has confirmed the stimulation of histamine
production of basophil cells by a substance diluted well past
the avogadro limit - no atoms of the stimulating substance
remain but the effect is still observed. The following might be
of interest:
4: Sainte-Laudy J, Belon P.
Improvement of flow cytometric analysis of basophil activation
inhibition by high
histamine dilutions. A novel basophil specific marker: CD 203c.
Homeopathy. 2006 Jan;95(1):3-8.
PMID: 16399248 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: Guggisberg AG, Baumgartner SM, Tschopp CM, Heusser P.
Replication study concerning the effects of homeopathic dilutions of
histamine on
human basophil degranulation in vitro.
Complement Ther Med. 2005 Jun;13(2):91-100.
PMID: 16036166 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6: Lorenz I, Schneider EM, Stolz P, Brack A, Strube J.
Sensitive flow cytometric method to test basophil activation
influenced by
homeopathic histamine dilutions.
Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2003 Dec;10(6):316-24.
PMID: 14707480 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
There is NO definitive conclusion regarding the possible
mechanism of Homeopathy and therefore, no refutation.
We must allow the research to take its course and
you CANNOT make premature conclusions neither based
on your personal "skepticism" nor on anyone's assertions
until that research is completed, in my opinion.
Citizen Jimserac
Ocean of Nuance
(wince)
> There is NO definitive conclusion regarding the possible
> mechanism of Homeopathy and therefore, no refutation.
If we can rule out a world-wide flood on first principles, why can't we
rule out homeopathy?
And let's not confuse empirical with lack of evidence. Li can be shown
to work empirically for certain cases of manic depression DESPITE the
fact that researchers may not know the mechanism.
In the case of homeopathy, not only is there no plausible mechanism but
there is no evidence.
I am sure that homeopathy is included in the JREF's $1 million
paranormal challenge.
If there was evidence for homeopathy, someone would have claimed the
prize by now.
http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html
> We must allow the research to take its course and
> you CANNOT make premature conclusions neither based
> on your personal "skepticism" nor on anyone's assertions
> until that research is completed, in my opinion.
But homeopathists have had decades to publish in the peer-reviewed
literature, no? Even if they managed to get a few published, other
stuff have gotten in that was been sounded refuted (e.g., "sticky" water
or whatever that was and room temperature fusion).
sharon
John Hasler
> There is NO definitive conclusion regarding the possible mechanism of
> Homeopathy and therefore, no refutation.
Of course there is. Any proposed mechanism must violate well established
basic principles. Homeopathy is the perpetual motion of chemistry.
In other words, it's pure quackery.
--
John Hasler Boarding, Lessons, Training
jo...@dhh.gt.org Hay, Jumps, Cavallox
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Jill
>
> In the case of homeopathy, not only is there no plausible mechanism
> but there is no evidence.
I am simply delighted in the evidence of my own eyes, my own families
health, and that of many animals I have used it on.
As to no mechanism in your own ken, fortunately mother nature does not use
that as the limitations of her ability.
Humans are, yet, very limited in their understanding of what powers there
are.
If we do not make the earth too unpleasant for us to survive, we have many a
fascinating journey yet to travel in the development of our knowledge and
understanding.
An open mind is a wonderful thing.
--
regards
Jill Bowis
Domestic Poultry and Waterfowl Solutions
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine Nursery
Seasonal Farm Food
http://www.kintaline.co.uk
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
> An open mind is a wonderful thing.
Unless you open it so much that your brain falls out.
Do you also have an open mind for young earth creationism?
Can we ever put anything to bed ever?
s
Jill
> Jill wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> An open mind is a wonderful thing.
>
> Unless you open it so much that your brain falls out.
Why take it to extremes that are nonesensical?
>
> Do you also have an open mind for young earth creationism?
I am rather more old earth ;)
Ever changing, constantly evolving, immense resilience.
John Hasler
> An open mind is a wonderful thing.
Not once it fills up with trash.
Jill
> Jill writes:
>> An open mind is a wonderful thing.
>
> Not once it fills up with trash.
;)
You have your experiences and others have theirs.
I have a very strict trash filter.
John Hasler
> Do you also have an open mind for young earth creationism?
Jill writes:
> I am rather more old earth ;)
> Ever changing, constantly evolving, immense resilience.
Another religion.
Jill
> Ocean of Nuance wrote:
>> Do you also have an open mind for young earth creationism?
>
> Jill writes:
>> I am rather more old earth ;)
>> Ever changing, constantly evolving, immense resilience.
>
> Another religion.
ooo shudder - not into them, ta!
;)
Ocean of Nuance
> John Hasler wrote:
>> Jill writes:
>>> An open mind is a wonderful thing.
>>
>> Not once it fills up with trash.
>
> ;)
> You have your experiences and others have theirs. I have a very strict
> trash filter.
Your experiences are flawed. Human intuition reliably fails.
Take for example the Monty Hall problem. Or trompe l'oeil.
s
Citizen Jimserac
> Ocean of Nuance wrote:
>
> > In the case of homeopathy, not only is there no plausible mechanism
> > but there is no evidence.
>
> I am simply delighted in the evidence of my own eyes, my own families
> health, and that of many animals I have used it on.
> As to no mechanism in your own ken, fortunately mother nature does not use
> that as the limitations of her ability.
> Humans are, yet, very limited in their understanding of what powers there
> are.
> If we do not make the earth too unpleasant for us to survive, we have many a
> fascinating journey yet to travel in the development of our knowledge and
> understanding.
> An open mind is a wonderful thing.
>
> --
> regards
> Jill Bowis
>
And it is your experience and the experience of many people repeated
hundreds of thousands of times that CONFIRMS the overwhelming
clinical viability and efficacy of Homeopathy.
If this system of medicine really were nothing,
there would hardly be the near hysterical innuendo against
it now seen - it is my belief that the mere thought of a system
of medicine that does not need vaccines, surgeries or pharmaceuticals
is so much of a threat to entrenched interests that that they
will miss no opportunity to attack it.
I first took notice upon reading Dr. Marjorie Blackie's excellent
book,
"The Patient Not the Cure" regarding her eperiences as a Homeopathic
physician
(she later became physician to the Queen of England). She speaks
of an incident in which she was called to render whatever aid she
could to a child dying from purpura, and given up for dead by the
conventional medical doctors of that era. She administered Crotalus
Horridus and the child made an unexpected recovery, to the
delight of his parents. Upon checking at the hospital later,
Dr. Blackie overheard a doctor describing the case to students
as an example of spontaneous cure, making no mention of the
Homeopathic intervention.
I don't believe that that child, nor its parents, ever spent one
moment worrying
about the theoretical basis of how the remedy worked to effect the
cure.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:
>
> (wince)
>
> > There is NO definitive conclusion regarding the possible
> > mechanism of Homeopathy and therefore, no refutation.
>
> If we can rule out a world-wide flood on first principles, why can't we
> rule out homeopathy?
(eyebrow raised in astonishment)
You can RULE OUT anything you wish in whatever
pseudo scientific reasoning you care to use.
Just don't tell ME that I have to accept it.
>
> And let's not confuse empirical with lack of evidence. Li can be shown
> to work empirically for certain cases of manic depression DESPITE the
> fact that researchers may not know the mechanism.
>
> In the case of homeopathy, not only is there no plausible mechanism but
> there is no evidence.
Pardon me for disagreeing on BOTH points.
First, with regard to "evidence" - it would be proper, would it not,
to establish similar rules of evaluation for Homeopathy as for
standard medicine.
The fact is, that there is NO evidence for modern medicine either
in the following sense: how many double blinded randomized placebo
controlled
tests do you know of for heart surgery? knee replacement?
chemotherapy??
With regard to "plausible mechamism" I have already listed the
research
of M. Ennis, repeated with success in some places and in the last
few years expanded on and repeated, with success, in some of the
research whose links I gave. In addition, from other directions
exists research, from genuine scientists, however controversial,
which again indicates the possibility of high dilution substances
eliciting either biological or physical effects.... here read:
paper by Chemist Louis Rey:
Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications
Volume 323, 15 May 2003, Pages 67-74
Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and
sodium chloride
Louis Rey
Received 10 December 2002.
Available online 28 February 2003.
"Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and
sodium chloride (10-30 gcm-3) have been
irradiated by X- and ã-rays at 77 K, then
progressively rewarmed to room temperature.
During that phase, their thermoluminescence
has been studied and it was found that,
despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro
number, the emitted light was specific of
the original salts dissolved initially."
Conclusion will be repeated here
for emphasis.
"IT WAS FOUND THAT DESPITE THEIR DILUTION
BEYOND THE AVOGADRO NUMBER, THE EMITTED
LIGHT WAS SPECIFIC OF THE ORIGINAL SALTS
DISOLVED INITIALLY".
With regards to "no evidence" I believe you should
educate yourself - a quick search will turn up MASSIVE
evidence that not only has Homeopathy been successful
in chronic diseases for which standard medicine has
insufficient, inadequate or non-existent treatments,
but it has also saved lives, for example in rather
deadly cholera epidemics. UNLESS, that is,
you wish to believe that reputable scientists,
dedicated MD's and other doctors who became
Homeopaths and several million patients have
been lying all this time.... I DON'T think so.
> I am sure that homeopathy is included in the JREF's $1 million
> paranormal challenge.
You dolt, that's a PUBLICITY STUNT.
> > We must allow the research to take its course and
> > you CANNOT make premature conclusions neither based
> > on your personal "skepticism" nor on anyone's assertions
> > until that research is completed, in my opinion.
>
> But homeopathists have had decades to publish in the peer-reviewed
> literature, no? Even if they managed to get a few published, other
> stuff have gotten in that was been sounded refuted (e.g., "sticky" water
> or whatever that was and room temperature fusion).
>
> sharon
You mean like THIS:
Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K, Kaufmann F, Walther D, Hsu-Schmitz SF,
Collenberg M, Fuhrer K, Hassink R, Steinlin M, Thurneysen A.
Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover
trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2005; 164 (12):758-67.
Lewith GT, Watkins AD, Hyland ME et al. Use of ultramolecular
potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people allergic to house dust
mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical trial. BMJ 2002; 324
(7336):520-3
Roy R, Tiller W, Bell IR et al. The Structure of Liquid Water: Novel
Insights from Materials Research and Potential Relevance to
Homeopathy. Materials Research Innovation 2005; 9 (4):557-608.
Ruiz-Vega G, Perez-Ordaz L, Proa-Flores P et al. An evaluation of
Coffea cruda effect on rats. British Homoeopathic Journal 2000; 89 (3):
122-6.
Friese K-H, Zabalotnyi DI. Homeopathy in acute rhinosinusitis.
A double-blind, placebo controlled study shows the effectiveness
and tolerability of a homeopathic combination remedy.
HNO 2006; 55: 271–7.
Weiser M, Clasen B. Randomized, placebo-controlled,
double-blind study of the clinical efficacy of the homeopathic
Euphorbium compositum-S nasal spray in cases of chronic
sinusitis. Forsch Komplementärmed 1994; 1: 251–9.
Jacobs J, Springer DA, Crothers D. Homeopathic treatment
of acute otitis media in children: a preliminary randomized
placebo-controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001; 20: 177–83.
Zell J, Connert WD, Mau J, Feuerstake G. Treatment of acute
sprains of the ankle. Controlled double-blind trial to test the
effectiveness of a homeopathic ointment. Fortschr Med 1988;
106: 96–100.
Diefenbach M, Schilken J, Steiner G, Becker HJ. Homeopathic
therapy in respiratory tract diseases. Evaluation of a clinical
study in 258 patients. Z Allgemeinmed 1997; 73: 308–14.
Weatherley-Jones E, Nicholl JP, Thomas KJ, et al. A randomized,
controlled, triple-blind trial of the efficacy of homeopathic
treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res 2004;
56: 189–97.
That's just a sampling - there's thousands more -
you goiing to tell me that they are all charlatans? MD's PhD's
Chemists, Physicsists?
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
> CitizenJimseracwrites:
> > There is NO definitive conclusion regarding the possible mechanism of
> > Homeopathy and therefore, no refutation.
>
> Of course there is. Any proposed mechanism must violate well established
> basic principles. Homeopathy is the perpetual motion of chemistry.
>
> In other words, it's pure quackery.
EXCUSE ME? The only quackery here is in your pseudo argument.
In order to make such an assertion, you would have to know
IN ADVANCE that "any proposed mechanism must violate well
established basic principles". Note the "ANY PROPOSED" mechanism
part of your assertion.
I submit that you not ony do not have such knowledge but could
never possibly obtain it. There remains only ONE answer -
we must allow the scientific researchers to do their job and research.
Citizen Jimserac
Ocean of Nuance
> On Oct 21, 1:30 pm, Ocean of Nuance <lizzardwomanRM...@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> CitizenJimseracwrote:
>>
>> (wince)
>>
>>> There is NO definitive conclusion regarding the possible
>>> mechanism of Homeopathy and therefore, no refutation.
>> If we can rule out a world-wide flood on first principles, why can't we
>> rule out homeopathy?
>
> (eyebrow raised in astonishment)
>
> You can RULE OUT anything you wish in whatever
> pseudo scientific reasoning you care to use.
> Just don't tell ME that I have to accept it.
Would you accept that a world-wide flood has been dispositively ruled
out if I showed you how to do it solely on accepted scientific principles?
Same question for homeopathy.
>> And let's not confuse empirical with lack of evidence. Li can be shown
>> to work empirically for certain cases of manic depression DESPITE the
>> fact that researchers may not know the mechanism.
>>
>> In the case of homeopathy, not only is there no plausible mechanism but
>> there is no evidence.
>
> Pardon me for disagreeing on BOTH points.
>
> First, with regard to "evidence" - it would be proper, would it not,
> to establish similar rules of evaluation for Homeopathy as for
> standard medicine.
Yes. That has been homeopathy's downfall to date.
> The fact is, that there is NO evidence for modern medicine either
> in the following sense: how many double blinded randomized placebo
> controlled
> tests do you know of for heart surgery? knee replacement?
> chemotherapy??
Do you also think we need randomized trials to test wither we should be
setting broken arm bones?
Chemo I suggest has been tested.
> With regard to "plausible mechamism" I have already listed the
> research
> of M. Ennis, repeated with success in some places and in the last
> few years expanded on and repeated, with success, in some of the
> research whose links I gave. In addition, from other directions
> exists research, from genuine scientists, however controversial,
> which again indicates the possibility of high dilution substances
> eliciting either biological or physical effects.... here read:
What is the mechanism? Why doesn't Brownian motion obliterate the
"memory" of the solute molecule? Alternatively, how is the "memory"
preserved in the face of Brownian motion?
> paper by Chemist Louis Rey:
> Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications
> Volume 323, 15 May 2003, Pages 67-74
>
> Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and
> sodium chloride
>
> Louis Rey
> Received 10 December 2002.
> Available online 28 February 2003.
>
> "Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and
> sodium chloride (10-30 gcm-3) have been
> irradiated by X- and ã-rays at 77 K, then
> progressively rewarmed to room temperature.
> During that phase, their thermoluminescence
> has been studied and it was found that,
> despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro
> number, the emitted light was specific of
> the original salts dissolved initially."
Are you sure they used new pipette tips and vials with each dilution? :)
> Conclusion will be repeated here
> for emphasis.
>
> "IT WAS FOUND THAT DESPITE THEIR DILUTION
> BEYOND THE AVOGADRO NUMBER, THE EMITTED
> LIGHT WAS SPECIFIC OF THE ORIGINAL SALTS
> DISOLVED INITIALLY".
>
> With regards to "no evidence" I believe you should
> educate yourself - a quick search will turn up MASSIVE
> evidence that not only has Homeopathy been successful
> in chronic diseases for which standard medicine has
> insufficient, inadequate or non-existent treatments,
> but it has also saved lives, for example in rather
> deadly cholera epidemics. UNLESS, that is,
> you wish to believe that reputable scientists,
> dedicated MD's and other doctors who became
> Homeopaths and several million patients have
> been lying all this time.... I DON'T think so.
Let's pleae stick with peer-reviewed journals please.
>
>> I am sure that homeopathy is included in the JREF's $1 million
>> paranormal challenge.
>
> You dolt, that's a PUBLICITY STUNT.
That's what the paranomalists always say.
>>> We must allow the research to take its course and
>>> you CANNOT make premature conclusions neither based
>>> on your personal "skepticism" nor on anyone's assertions
>>> until that research is completed, in my opinion.
>> But homeopathists have had decades to publish in the peer-reviewed
>> literature, no? Even if they managed to get a few published, other
>> stuff have gotten in that was been sounded refuted (e.g., "sticky" water
>> or whatever that was and room temperature fusion).
>>
>> sharon
>
> You mean like THIS:
(snip)
This one is my favorite...
> Zell J, Connert WD, Mau J, Feuerstake G. Treatment of acute
> sprains of the ankle. Controlled double-blind trial to test the
> effectiveness of a homeopathic ointment. Fortschr Med 1988;
> 106: 96–100.
(snip)
> That's just a sampling - there's thousands more -
> you goiing to tell me that they are all charlatans? MD's PhD's
> Chemists, Physicsists?
Let's limit this to peer-reviewed journals, okay? I don't know which,if
any of those listed are peer-reviewed.
Why couldn't the researchers prove their case in the trial I described?
Why don't they claim the $1 millon?
s
Ocean of Nuance
Look, you're new here and I've taken a shine to you so I'm going to give
you some friendly advice...
You technically can challenge Hasler on some point but you are best
advised to prepare far, Far, FAR more than you have.
Some of us prepare for weeks, even months, to challenge even the most
minor point that Hasler might make. Few have found the edge of his
envelope if you catch my drift and some destroy themselves in the effort.
Word,
s
Jill
>>
>> First, with regard to "evidence" - it would be proper, would it not,
>> to establish similar rules of evaluation for Homeopathy as for
>> standard medicine.
>
> Yes. That has been homeopathy's downfall to date.
>
I would agree, its almost impossible to make how homeopathy works, fit with
the tests that are imposed upon it.
I have grown up in a background of the medical world and the complementary
world.
Its frustrating that they so want to talk to each other and understand each
other but miss so often.
At last there has been a solid trial on Alexander Technique that has proven
its value in back pain to the medical world. It was one of the easiest but
still has taken years to get a study that both sides would accept.
There are more and more studies coming through.
And there are many more positive experiences that show the efficacy.
Ocean of Nuance
> Ocean of Nuance wrote:
>>>
>>> First, with regard to "evidence" - it would be proper, would it not,
>>> to establish similar rules of evaluation for Homeopathy as for
>>> standard medicine.
>>
>> Yes. That has been homeopathy's downfall to date.
>>
>
> I would agree, its almost impossible to make how homeopathy works, fit
> with the tests that are imposed upon it.
> I have grown up in a background of the medical world and the
> complementary world.
> Its frustrating that they so want to talk to each other and understand
> each other but miss so often.
The problem homeopathy has I imagine is the same reason it will never be
patentable... it ignores known P-chem reality like Brownian motion. I
can't believe any mainstream funding agency would fund a trial when
there are other medical claims to be tested that don't violate known
laws. Very few mainstream scientists are going to spend time and risk
their reputation on something that seems to be ruled out a priori.
Note this is the same reason we don't have 99.9999999% of the very
devout religious scientists trying to prove young earth creationism or a
worldwide flood. It is ruled out on dozens of lines of evidence in hand.
I would appreciate seeing a homeopathy person address the Brownian
motion issue.
sharon
Brian Whatcott
<lizzardw...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>I would appreciate seeing a homeopathy person address the Brownian
>motion issue.
>
>sharon
I would appreciate seeing a physical chemist or physicist describe
the extended structural properties of common or garden water
satisfactorily. This is not to bolster the strange claims of the
homeopathic enthusiasts, just to point out that the physical
effects that Sharon believes are crucial, are not.
Brian W
Bill Kambic
<ne...@NOSPAMkintaline.co.uk> wrote:
>Ocean of Nuance wrote:
>>>
>>> First, with regard to "evidence" - it would be proper, would it not,
>>> to establish similar rules of evaluation for Homeopathy as for
>>> standard medicine.
>>
>> Yes. That has been homeopathy's downfall to date.
>>
>
>I would agree, its almost impossible to make how homeopathy works, fit with
>the tests that are imposed upon it.
>I have grown up in a background of the medical world and the complementary
>world.
>Its frustrating that they so want to talk to each other and understand each
>other but miss so often.
>At last there has been a solid trial on Alexander Technique that has proven
>its value in back pain to the medical world. It was one of the easiest but
>still has taken years to get a study that both sides would accept.
>There are more and more studies coming through.
>And there are many more positive experiences that show the efficacy.
The "positive" experiences with homeopathy demonstrate positive
experiences. They do not hold any proof that homeopathy was the cause
of that exerience. This is the foundation of the statement that "the
plural of anacdote is not data."
First you have to establish that a change was caused by some agent.
Second you must discover the mechanism that worked the change. Third
you must determine how to apply that mechanism in the most efficient
manner. Or, in the alternative, how to block the mechanism (depending
upon your goal). Frankly, I don't see the first step being
demonstrated.
I used to investigate aircraft accidents for a living. One of the
first things I learned was just how poor human perception and
recollection can be when emotion is involved (fear, love, hate,
anxiety, etc.). While "seeing is believing" is a popular concept it
WAY more often wrong than right. So my trust and confidence in
med/vet anacdote is VERY low. And homeopathic success are purely
anacdotal.
Citizen Jimserac
wrote:
> Jill wrote:
> > Ocean of Nuance wrote:
>
> >>> First, with regard to "evidence" - it would be proper, would it not,
> >>> to establish similar rules of evaluation for Homeopathy as for
> >>> standard medicine.
>
> >> Yes. That has been homeopathy's downfall to date.
>
> > I would agree, its almost impossible to make how homeopathy works, fit
> > with the tests that are imposed upon it.
> > I have grown up in a background of the medical world and the
> > complementary world.
> > Its frustrating that they so want to talk to each other and understand
> > each other but miss so often.
>
> The problem homeopathy has I imagine is the same reason it will never be
> patentable... it ignores known P-chem reality like Brownian motion.
Say what????
Now look if you persist in THIS attitude, you will ensure
the end of all scientific research.
Let us go back several decades, back to the era in which a portion
of patients' stomachs were CUT OUT in order to "cure" ulcers.
Along came a researcher named Barry Marshall who dared
to provide research that a bacteria might be involved.
He was ridiculed, at first his papers were rejected
because the conventional sceintific wisdom of the times was
that a bacterium could no survive in the acidic environment
of the stomach. More derision followed but Marshall's research
proved well done and several journals began publishing
it. Eventually Marshall provided overwhelming evidence
for the existence of the bacteria (the clever little fellows
were hiding in the stomach linning) but STILL there was
widespread skepticism, even serious objection to his discovery...
UNTIL that is, one day he decided to INGEST some of the
H. Pylorii bacteria (gulp!) and soon thereafter demonstrated
signs of (surpirse!!) ulcers.
Conventional science had been right as far as it went ....
but did not go far enough.
Although the skeptics
were silenced, it was nearly ANOTHER DECADE before
the average practitioner altered their treatment protocols
to reflect the new discovery, so great was the inertia
of the entrenched orthodoxy.
> I
> can't believe any mainstream funding agency would fund a trial when
> there are other medical claims to be tested that don't violate known
> laws. Very few mainstream scientists are going to spend time and risk
> their reputation on something that seems to be ruled out a priori.
You've got a point there, poor Marshall had to eat
some bacteria. What will the breakthrough Homeopathic
researcher have to do, give themselves cholera and then
cure themselves with just the Homeopathic remedy?
> Note this is the same reason we don't have 99.9999999% of the very
> devout religious scientists trying to prove young earth creationism or a
> worldwide flood. It is ruled out on dozens of lines of evidence in hand.
If a flood would just wash ben goldacre away, I'd be happy.
> I would appreciate seeing a homeopathy person address the Brownian
> motion issue.
I thought Einstein had already done a pretty good job of it
but.... who knows!
Citizen Jimserac
Why did the Homeopath's patient expire?
Poor chap forgot to take it, died of an overdose.
Jill
> And homeopathic success are purely anacdotal.
I know mine are ;) -- saving several animals lives, and improving others, is
fine by me.
The more profound have been once months of standard veterinary care has been
tried to the highest levels.
One day it will be more explanable to the masses, until then I have a lot of
confidence in how homeopathy is evolved and used.
If I have confidence in the homeopath then I am happy to use it.
Those I have gone to for animals have been vets as well.
I would not use a homeopath I was not sure about as the misuse of homeopathy
can have serious effects.
Nancy...@gmail.com
Supplements are useful, but if you want to have healthy joints, you
need to balance the stresses acting upon them. This means you have to
evaluate and correct postural deviations, and you have to evaluate and
correct faulty kinesthetics. Watch yourself in the mirror, or team up
with a friend, and look for asymmetry.
Example: A few months ago, I noticed pain in my left knee. I blew it
off, figuring I'd been kneeling on it too much - a bad habit I've
developed when working with a client. I kneeled less. The pain got
worse, and I began to have swelling. It started waking me up at
night. I wondered if it might be a Lyme flare-up, and increased my
herbs. It continued to get worse.
It was weeks before it occurred to me that I hadn't taken a moment to
evaluate my posture and movement, the way I would any client who might
come to me with a similar issue. Duh. I glanced down as I walked,
and noticed the foot on the painful knee side was landing everted -
toes out - while the opposite foot landed straight. (rolls eyes)
So I paid a bit more attention and realized I was externally rotating
at the hip as the leg came forward. As it came back, the hip
internally rotated back to neutral. The foot was planted and unable
to slide enough to take up all of the twisting motion, so I was
torqueing the knee with every step.
I spent maybe 5 minutes doing muscle energy techniques to temporarily
correct the rotation. By the very next day, the knee was no longer
painful or swollen.
I'm working on balancing all the muscles involved - strengthening the
ones that were over-stretched and inhibited, and lengthening the ones
that were shortened, and the knee has had only the teeniest flare-ups,
easily resolved by working a wee bit harder at keeping the thing
balanced. The original cause is, I think, a groin pull that I never
adequately rehabbed. My bad.
So, yes, supplement. None of us is perfect, and we will do damage
that can use some help to heal. Antioxidants are crucial. Limiting
Omega-6 oils and taking more Omega-3 oils is valuable. Limiting
starches and sugars will bring down over-all inflammation. I like
comfrey poultices - never tried them until Doc Newell suggested
comfrey for Louise. They do seem to do as advertised - clearing
debris so that inflammation settles down and healing accelerates. I'm
big on Hyalun, but haven't felt the need to take it for over a year.
But no supplement will cure a joint issue unless you also balance the
muscles around it and use it the way it was meant to be used.
Otherwise there will be friction, and inflammation, and degeneration.
And, to keep it on topic, the same is true of horses. Watch your
horse walk toward you. Watch him walk away. Is he symmetrical? If
not, why not? Watch him move past you. Does he track up equally in
both directions? Is he equally free in both shoulders? If not, why
not?
I stick Jinks on the longe a couple times a week, watch him move, stop
him, and take care of any muscle issues I might find. Then I do work
in hand and under saddle to further address those issues. He is
becoming a much softer, more elastic horse that the one that melted
out of the ice this spring. Around the time of Pat's clinic, he
wasn't even sound, he was so completely out of balance. And this from
simply being left to his own devices for a VERY snowy/icy winter, and
compensating for body soreness from a lifetime on the track, without
any intervention.
OK - time to shut up. :)
Nancy DeMarco
Mason, NH
Citizen Jimserac
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:19:33 +0100, " Jill"
Your powers of observation serve you well, there is
a good deal of anecdotal support for Homeopathy,
but your conclusions are of interest.
Anecdotes are not intended to "prove" scientifically
anything - they are merely indicators that
there MIGHT be reason to start investigating
something.
And, contrary to the bull about "evidence"
based medicine, standard "scientific" (sic)
medicine itself relies on anecdotes and clinical
success far more than it admits - heard of
any double blinded randomized placebo
controlled experiments on humans
for chemotherapy or heart surgery
in which part of the control group
is given a placebo and allowed to die?
No? I didn't think so.
So who, in the end, decides the efficacy
of these treatments? Why oncologists
and heart surgeons of course.
So it is same with Homeopathic
doctors.
There is overwhelming clinical evidence
for Homeopathy - it has even performed
well in deadly epidemics - what IS lacking
is a theory of how it works.
And, JUST as with so called standard medicine,
along with the anocdotal background there is
a growing body of double blinded randomized placebo
controlled experiments supportive of Homeopathy,
though, with its claim to individualized treatments,
these sort of tests may be totally incorrect for this
system of medicine.
And, JUST as with standard medicine,
there is some research that is good, some bad,
some with positive results, some showing no effect
whatsoever, just as it should be.
The most dangerous fallacy of the anti-Homeopathists
is the statement that there is no research to back it up
followed by the demand that all research be stopped -
a viewpoint that somehow ignores chicken and egg.
IF we were to follow this line of "reasoning",
all scientific research should be stopped.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
Saw your excellent web site.
Learned a bit about argyll Jacob sheep, quite interesting.
May I suggest that you carry some books on Vetinary Homeopathy?
Information in this area is probably known to a few specialists
and might prove of interest to the public.
My main areas of interest are Acupuncture and Chinese Herbology
but I am continuing to read Homeopathy with continuing interest.
Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
Bill Kambic
<Jims...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
>So who, in the end, decides the efficacy
>of these treatments? Why oncologists
>and heart surgeons of course.
>So it is same with Homeopathic
>doctors.
Not even close.
>There is overwhelming clinical evidence
>for Homeopathy - it has even performed
>well in deadly epidemics - what IS lacking
>is a theory of how it works.
Care to share a cite on homeopathy and which deadly epidemic?
>The most dangerous fallacy of the anti-Homeopathists
>is the statement that there is no research to back it up
>followed by the demand that all research be stopped -
>a viewpoint that somehow ignores chicken and egg.
Hold on there, Hoss, I never suggested any such thing. I've got no
"heartburn" with anacdote suggesting research. That's been done since
at least the time of Galen. But not all reasearch is created equal.
The research cited so far has been deeply flawed. Does this mean it
works but we don't know how? Or that it doesn't work and we're just
seeing "placbo effects?" Or something else entirely?
>IF we were to follow this line of "reasoning",
>all scientific research should be stopped.
No, if we followed your line of reasoning we'd see M.D. Anderson using
laetril to treat cancer.
law
Might as well hang it up, Citizen. Unless Lizzie suddenly "discovers"
homeopathy, she'll use all her "science" as a reason not to even
consider something. Google back through the Wreck about chiropractic
treatments. Lizzie was throwing Randy at that ... until she had cause to
use it herself <snort>
LisaW
--
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international
crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the
next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Citizen Jimserac
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:30:35 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac
>
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>
> >So who, in the end, decides the efficacy
> >of these treatments? Why oncologists
> >and heart surgeons of course.
> >So it is same with Homeopathic
> >doctors.
>
> Not even close.
Aw heck you're right - some lawyers must get involved
to determine the minimum requirements to avoid
malpractice in the treatment too.
>
> >There is overwhelming clinical evidence
> >for Homeopathy - it has even performed
> >well in deadly epidemics - what IS lacking
> >is a theory of how it works.
>
> Care to share a cite on homeopathy and which deadly epidemic?
You bet, cholera, London, 1854 - after the epidemic
was over, people clamored to find out the cause
and Parliament asked the equivalent of the National
Health Service of that era to come out with
a report on what treatments worked. They
produced the report but OMITTED the Homeopathic
reports. Someone in Parliament found out
and demanded that THOSE reports also
be submitted. There were. It was were checked
by a standard medical doctor who was an opponent
of Homeopathy. After his investigation he avowed
that if the epidemic were to return, he would entrust
his care to (surprise!) Homeopaths.
The success of the Homeopaths in cholera epidemics
is often rationalized away as an example of how doing nothing
can be superiour to the detrimental standard treatments
of the era (blood letting, calomel... etc). but the statistics
do not bear this out.
Doing absolutely nothing in a cholera epidemic earns a 50-60%
mortality.
Seeing the the conventional doctors gave a mortality rate of
30-40% (at best).
The Homeopaths routinely got 15% or better.
Here are some details:
http://laughingmysocksoff.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/sock-horror-in-cholera-statistics/
> >The most dangerous fallacy of the anti-Homeopathists
> >is the statement that there is no research to back it up
> >followed by the demand that all research be stopped -
> >a viewpoint that somehow ignores chicken and egg.
>
> Hold on there, Hoss, I never suggested any such thing. I've got no
> "heartburn" with anacdote suggesting research. That's been done since
> at least the time of Galen. But not all reasearch is created equal.
> The research cited so far has been deeply flawed. Does this mean it
> works but we don't know how? Or that it doesn't work and we're just
> seeing "placbo effects?" Or something else entirely?
I do not accept the placebo rationalization - it simply
replaces one unknown with another.
> >IF we were to follow this line of "reasoning",
> >all scientific research should be stopped.
>
> No, if we followed your line of reasoning we'd see M.D. Anderson using
> laetril to treat cancer.
I will not frighten you by supplying statistics on chemotherapy,
the accepted "treatment" for some types of cancer.
There IS no one cancer and no one treatment for all of it.
The issue requires more (surprise!) research - but you could do well
to read about research in cancer, like the war in Iraq, looking in the
wrong
place for the wrong reasons at the wrong time - see the recent book
"The Secret History of the War on Cancer".
Citizen Jimserac
Ocean of Nuance
> On Oct 22, 7:30 am, Ocean of Nuance <lizzardwomanRM...@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> Jill wrote:
>>> Ocean of Nuance wrote:
>>>>> First, with regard to "evidence" - it would be proper, would it not,
>>>>> to establish similar rules of evaluation for Homeopathy as for
>>>>> standard medicine.
>>>> Yes. That has been homeopathy's downfall to date.
>>> I would agree, its almost impossible to make how homeopathy works, fit
>>> with the tests that are imposed upon it.
>>> I have grown up in a background of the medical world and the
>>> complementary world.
>>> Its frustrating that they so want to talk to each other and understand
>>> each other but miss so often.
>> The problem homeopathy has I imagine is the same reason it will never be
>> patentable... it ignores known P-chem reality like Brownian motion.
>
> Say what????
I actually look forward to these reactions from you!
> Now look if you persist in THIS attitude, you will ensure
> the end of all scientific research.
Let's put it this way... if homeopathy is right then plenty else is
wrong that we presently think is right.
Similarly, if the earth is really a few thousand years old or if there
really was a worldwide flood (leaving aside the fact that the Egyptians
and Chinese didn't realize they were under water for almost a year),
then plenty else about hydrology, geology, meteorolgy, chemistry,
physics, etc. is necessarily wrong. And yet there is not one indication
any of it is wrong. Is it theoretically possible that all previous
observations in all these fields are somehow wrong? Yes. What are the
odds? Vanishing.
Do you see my point here?
> Let us go back several decades, back to the era in which a portion
> of patients' stomachs were CUT OUT in order to "cure" ulcers.
Hold on there, mister. Bad example. There was nothing unscientific
about suggesting bacteria were the cause of some ulcers. Microbio types
knew long before that how acidophilic bacteria make a living in that
type of enviroment. There were actual examples of extremophiles in hand
AFAIK.
That is NOT the same as homeopathy with is analogous to claiming a young
earth or a worldwide flood where it is presently an unscientific claim,
NOT like H. pylori.
Do you see that point?
>> Note this is the same reason we don't have 99.9999999% of the very
>> devout religious scientists trying to prove young earth creationism or a
>> worldwide flood. It is ruled out on dozens of lines of evidence in hand.
>
> If a flood would just wash ben goldacre away, I'd be happy.
Do I care who Ben Goldacre is? Please advise.
>> I would appreciate seeing a homeopathy person address the Brownian
>> motion issue.
>
> I thought Einstein had already done a pretty good job of it
> but.... who knows!
Einstein showed a mechanism for water molecules to "remember" a solute
molecule past dilution?
> Citizen Jimserac
> Why did the Homeopath's patient expire?
> Poor chap forgot to take it, died of an overdose.
I NEVER get tired of htat joke!
s
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
> I do not accept the placebo rationalization - it simply
> replaces one unknown with another.
Ironically, placebo is real. :)
Many prayer studies show this although there is at least one where the
people did WORSE when they new they were being prayed for (please pardon
that preposition). Sort of a "backfire placebo" effect.
The mind is amazing. Brain science is beyond fascinating.
>>> IF we were to follow this line of "reasoning",
>>> all scientific research should be stopped.
>> No, if we followed your line of reasoning we'd see M.D. Anderson using
>> laetril to treat cancer.
>
> I will not frighten you by supplying statistics on chemotherapy,
> the accepted "treatment" for some types of cancer.
They are better than doing nothing I'd wager. Chemo kept my father
alive for 25 years though it killed him in the end. It's a tradeoff.
> There IS no one cancer and no one treatment for all of it.
> The issue requires more (surprise!) research - but you could do well
> to read about research in cancer, like the war in Iraq, looking in the
> wrong
> place for the wrong reasons at the wrong time - see the recent book
> "The Secret History of the War on Cancer".
I know you think you are trying to make a point and you may have one but
dragging in so many other topics at least gives the appearance of "Look
at the Wookie" which in the last resort of those with no position to
defend.
s
Ocean of Nuance
> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>> On Oct 21, 1:37 pm, John Hasler <j...@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
>>> CitizenJimseracwrites:
>>>> There is NO definitive conclusion regarding the possible mechanism of
>>>> Homeopathy and therefore, no refutation.
>>> Of course there is. Any proposed mechanism must violate well
>>> established
>>> basic principles. Homeopathy is the perpetual motion of chemistry.
>>>
>>> In other words, it's pure quackery.
>>
>> EXCUSE ME? The only quackery here is in your pseudo argument.
>> In order to make such an assertion, you would have to know
>> IN ADVANCE that "any proposed mechanism must violate well
>> established basic principles". Note the "ANY PROPOSED" mechanism
>> part of your assertion.
>>
>> I submit that you not ony do not have such knowledge but could
>> never possibly obtain it. There remains only ONE answer -
>> we must allow the scientific researchers to do their job and research.
>>
>
> Might as well hang it up, Citizen. Unless Lizzie suddenly "discovers"
> homeopathy, she'll use all her "science" as a reason not to even
> consider something. Google back through the Wreck about chiropractic
> treatments. Lizzie was throwing Randy at that ... until she had cause to
> use it herself <snort>
That's misleading!
I have used "trick" chiro with Pete because it immediately stops the
pain response by either freeing a nerve or blocking a pain response. He
has not needed it for a long, long time now that he can work straight
consistently.
I have never used "woo-woo" chiro and never will.
Trick chiro is known medicine whereas woo-woo chiro is specifically
included in the JREF million dollar paranormal challenge. For a reason.
sharon
Ocean of Nuance
Look, if those guys can spell out "IBM" in freaking Cs atoms, I would
think they can use what is known about Brownian motion to r/o homeopathy.
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/images/stm10.jpg
s
Jill
> That is NOT the same as homeopathy with is analogous to claiming a
> young earth or a worldwide flood where it is presently an
> unscientific claim, NOT like H. pylori.
>
Only in your world.
There are plenty of medics and vets who are happy to work with homeopathy
and understand its efficacy.
Yes, I agree, it does not fit with conventional trials procedures as they
exist now, and FAR too little effort has been made by either side to find a
solution.
There is fault on both sides. Meanwhile there are many of all species being
greatly aided by homeopathy and I will also have it in mind for mine.
Sometimes its a better solution than conventional, its gentler. Sometimes
its useful alongside, it assists the conventional to perform better, or
allows it to work with less stressful influences - we have just extended a
dogs life by 18 months with the assistance of homeopathy much to our vets
astonishment. He literally defied physiological logic, he should not have
been able to trot without dying [that is not over exaggeration, it is
clinical] let alone doing the rounds of 24 acres twice or three times a day
as he did up until 3 days before we let him go. We ran out of the
homeopathic treatment and I did not bother to get more thinking that it
probably wasn't helping much by then. I was wrong, I got more. It was subtle
but profound.
Coming from a medical and scientific background it frustrates me that there
are not empirical studies that would convince more people who could benefit.
But what I have learnt myself, and experienced means that at least I can
benefit myself and my own. I am lucky enough to have found a number of
homeopaths to learn from, I find the provings fascinating and have even been
able to see the effects of some of the more powerful treatments - very
interesting
Citizen Jimserac
wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > I do not accept the placebo rationalization - it simply
> > replaces one unknown with another.
>
> Ironically, placebo is real. :)
Ah but its mechanism is as unknown as Homeopathy
so they both need (surprise!!!) more research.
Why substitute one unknown for another other
than the rather poor trick of attempting to identify
one with the other.
>
> Many prayer studies show this although there is at least one where the
> people did WORSE when they new they were being prayed for (please pardon
> that preposition). Sort of a "backfire placebo" effect.
> The mind is amazing. Brain science is beyond fascinating.
I agree.
> >>> IF we were to follow this line of "reasoning",
> >>> all scientific research should be stopped.
> >> No, if we followed your line of reasoning we'd see M.D. Anderson using
> >> laetril to treat cancer.
>
> > I will not frighten you by supplying statistics on chemotherapy,
> > the accepted "treatment" for some types of cancer.
>
> They are better than doing nothing I'd wager. Chemo kept my father
> alive for 25 years though it killed him in the end. It's a tradeoff.
Sorry.
>
> > There IS no one cancer and no one treatment for all of it.
> > The issue requires more (surprise!) research - but you could do well
> > to read about research in cancer, like the war in Iraq, looking in the
> > wrong
> > place for the wrong reasons at the wrong time - see the recent book
> > "The Secret History of the War on Cancer".
>
> I know you think you are trying to make a point and you may have one but
> dragging in so many other topics at least gives the appearance of "Look
> at the Wookie" which in the last resort of those with no position to
> defend.
>
Well, don't mention that to a Wookie, they anger easily.
My point on cancer is that after DECADES of research and BILLIONS
spent on research we
don't have a clue - all we have are an assortment of palliative
treatments
or delaying actions, as was the case with your father. That he was
able to survive for a long time was good but we can hardly call this a
"cure".
Perhaps the following might intrigue you, resarch in Homeopathy for
cancer
in a country where the Homeopathic medical schools were NOT shut down
nor blocked by political intervention:
from the pubmed link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12963976
Int J Oncol. 2003 Oct;23(4):975-82.
Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but
proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes: A novel
treatment for human brain cancer.
Pathak S, Multani AS, Banerji P, Banerji P.
Department of Molecular Genetics, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center,
Houston, TX 77030, USA. patha...@yahoo.com
"Although conventional chemotherapies are used to treat patients with
malignancies, damage to normal cells is problematic. Blood-forming
bone marrow cells are the most adversely affected. It is therefore
necessary to find alternative agents that can kill cancer cells but
have minimal effects on normal cells. We investigated the brain cancer
cell-killing activity of a homeopathic medicine, Ruta, isolated from a
plant, Ruta graveolens. We treated human brain cancer and HL-60
leukemia cells, normal B-lymphoid cells, and murine melanoma cells in
vitro with different concentrations of Ruta in combination with
Ca3(PO4)2. Fifteen patients diagnosed with intracranial tumors were
treated with Ruta 6 and Ca3(PO4)2. Of these 15 patients, 6 of the 7
glioma patients showed complete regression of tumors."
End Abstract quote
Ben Goldacre is a science writer for the Guardian in Britain and a
rabid anti-Homeopathists. He holds a medical degree.
Search for laughingmysocksoffblog for a discusion and expose'.
Re: Einstein's Brownian Motion paper - I'm in uncharted terrirtory as
my background, till 2005, was
software. I have tried reading Dr. Rustum Roy's memory of water
paper with limited success.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
wrote:
> law wrote:
> > CitizenJimseracwrote:
I was going to ask what woo woo chiro was but have decided it would be
better for my
equanimity no to ask.
I do hope you do not entertain similar views of Acupuncture, which has
had neurological theories
at least offering some scientific explanation of its well known
successs, for quite some time.
Citizen Jimserac
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
> I was going to ask what woo woo chiro was but have decided it would be
> better for my
> equanimity no to ask.
"Trick chiro" is neither a trick nor chiro. Nerves , pain responses,
etc. are real and the purview of medicine, not the paranormal.
Therefore it's misleading in the extreme to say I used chiro on Pete
despite the fact that the vet calls it chiro.
There is a reason chiro-chiro is included in the million dollar
paranormal challenge. There is no way in hell they are going to pay out
on freeing/blocking a nerve (i.e., NOT paranormal).
> I do hope you do not entertain similar views of Acupuncture, which has
> had neurological theories
> at least offering some scientific explanation of its well known
> successs, for quite some time.
Acupuncture is off the paranormal list for a small number of
applications AFAIK. It has been shown to be efficacious in those cases
for limited complaints.
It doesn't matter whether or not they have a theory of how it works.
Lithium works for some manic depression AFAIK without folks knowing the
mechanism. Empirical efficacy is as good as explained efficacy to the
patient.
s
Jill
> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> I was going to ask what woo woo chiro was but have decided it would
>> be better for my
>> equanimity no to ask.
>
> "Trick chiro" is neither a trick nor chiro. Nerves , pain responses,
> etc. are real and the purview of medicine, not the paranormal.
> Therefore it's misleading in the extreme to say I used chiro on Pete
> despite the fact that the vet calls it chiro.
[shakes head]
If only you learnt something about what you write
For a scientist you are astonishingly ill-informed and intentionally
ignorant.
sigh ;)
Ocean of Nuance
> On Oct 22, 4:26 pm, Ocean of Nuance <lizzardwomanRM...@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> CitizenJimseracwrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> I do not accept the placebo rationalization - it simply
>>> replaces one unknown with another.
>> Ironically, placebo is real. :)
>
> Ah but its mechanism is as unknown as Homeopathy
> so they both need (surprise!!!) more research.
> Why substitute one unknown for another other
> than the rather poor trick of attempting to identify
> one with the other.
I think the brain science guys are going to crack some nuts soon, both
figuratively and literally. For example, they know temporal lobe
seizures can cause some cases of hyper-religiosity and they have cured
those people of the seizures and the hyper-religiosity.
The next step is to map the "average" levels of religiosity in the
brain. I think they are going to find that atheists who simply canNOT
make themselves believe in the supernatural despite all efforts are
missing a necessary brain chemical pathway. If true, I think atheists
should get governments handouts. :)
I'm just going to make a general comment about these papers you cite...
It is my impression from doing research, reviewing papers, being
involved in the design of QA/QC programs, etc. that there needs to be
PLENTY more QA/QC in all bench and field work. I recently recommended
not publishing a paper I reviewed because of an appalling lack of
minimal QA/QC. It was a modeling paper but I really didn't have to read
past the methods section... there are certain minimal levels of field
and lab QA/QC sampling (replicates, spikes, surrogates, blanks, etc.)
that must be done or you simply don't have any idea how good the data
are. Even if you nail the lab QA/QC, the overall variability and
accuracy are often controlled largely by what happens during the field
sampling.
Sorry to go into detail and I know these medical studies don't generally
have a field component but I just would like to see their methods
sections for the QA/QC protocol. I think it would be interesting.
> Ben Goldacre is a science writer for the Guardian in Britain and a
> rabid anti-Homeopathists. He holds a medical degree.
> Search for laughingmysocksoffblog for a discusion and expose'.
Okay then.
> Re: Einstein's Brownian Motion paper - I'm in uncharted terrirtory as
> my background, till 2005, was
> software. I have tried reading Dr. Rustum Roy's memory of water
> paper with limited success.
The P-chem guys might as well be gods. :)
sharon
Ocean of Nuance
> Ocean of Nuance wrote:
>> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> I was going to ask what woo woo chiro was but have decided it would
>>> be better for my
>>> equanimity no to ask.
>>
>> "Trick chiro" is neither a trick nor chiro. Nerves , pain responses,
>> etc. are real and the purview of medicine, not the paranormal.
>> Therefore it's misleading in the extreme to say I used chiro on Pete
>> despite the fact that the vet calls it chiro.
>
> [shakes head]
> If only you learnt something about what you write
> For a scientist you are astonishingly ill-informed and intentionally
> ignorant.
>
> sigh ;)
Hey, that's my guess from seeing it in action.
What's your guess about what the vet is doing (a quick push that removes
the pain response)???
What's you explanation for why chiro is included in the million dollar
paranormal challenge?
sharon
Brian Whatcott
<lizzardw...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
Not relevant to the extended structure of water as it happens.
But this URL which is accessible to a general interest readership also
carries your Brownian motion notion as a question mark on
homeopathy.
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html
Brian W
Citizen Jimserac
Any thoughts on THIS:
This paper does not deal in any way with, and has no bearing
whatsoever on, the clinical
efficacy of any homeopathic remedy. However, it does definitively
demolish the objection
against homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim
that since there is no difference in composition between a remedy and
the pure water used, there can be no
differences at all between them. We show the untenability of this
claim against the central
paradigm of materials science that it is structure (not composition)
that (largely) controls
properties, and structures can easily be changed in inorganic phases
without any change of composition. The burden of proof on critics of
homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy
is not different from the original solvent.
The principal conclusions of this paper concern only the plausibility
of the biological action of ultradiluted water remedies, they are
based on some very old (e.g. homeopathy) and some very new (e.g.
metallic and nanobubble colloids) observations which have been
rejected on invalid grounds or due to ignorance of the materials
research literature and its theoretical basis. This constitutes an
excellent example of the common error in rejecting new scientific
discoveries by using the absence of evidence as evidence for absence.
or THIS:
This extreme structural flexibility certainly predisposes water to
change by both epitaxy and
succussion. The latter introducing the possibility of a stable nano-
airbubble colloid. These
last named factors provide a theoretical plausibility for the robust
outcomes data of dozens of researchers in the homeopathic field, who
have reached more or less similar conclusions by other routes.
The connection of the imprinting, via succussion and possible epitaxy,
of the different
specific homeopathic remedies on the structure of water eliminates the
primitive criticism of
homeopathy being untenable due to the absence of any remnant of the
molecules. Structures change properties vastly more easily and
dramatically than chemistry changes them. Beyond the homeopathic
field, such an enormous structural pliability also provides a
plausible framework for the claims of the most reliable workers in the
field of “subtle energies” to be able to change the structure and
properties of water.
from THIS link:
http://www.i-evolve.dk/artikler/5.pdf
Do you know to what his references to "subtle energies" refers?
Citizen Jimserac
Ocean of Nuance
> Any thoughts on THIS:
(snip)
> The burden of proof on critics of
> homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy
> is not different from the original solvent.
There is no burden of proof on critics. The folks making the positive
claim (homeopathists) have the burden to show there is a "there" there.
The famous example is suggesting there is a teapot in elliptical orbit
somewhere in the solar system. The burden is not on the folks who doubt
this. Rather it is on the folks who claim it.
Now, that's not to say that if/when critics come forward, there isn't
some obligation to be rigorously scientific; They most certainly is.
> or THIS:
> This extreme structural flexibility certainly predisposes water to
> change by both epitaxy and
> succussion. The latter introducing the possibility of a stable nano-
> airbubble colloid. These
> last named factors provide a theoretical plausibility for the robust
> outcomes data of dozens of researchers in the homeopathic field, who
> have reached more or less similar conclusions by other routes.
> The connection of the imprinting, via succussion and possible epitaxy,
> of the different
> specific homeopathic remedies on the structure of water eliminates the
> primitive criticism of
> homeopathy being untenable due to the absence of any remnant of the
> molecules. Structures change properties vastly more easily and
> dramatically than chemistry changes them. Beyond the homeopathic
> field, such an enormous structural pliability also provides a
> plausible framework for the claims of the most reliable workers in the
> field of “subtle energies” to be able to change the structure and
> properties of water.
>
> from THIS link:
> http://www.i-evolve.dk/artikler/5.pdf
>
> Do you know to what his references to "subtle energies" refers?
That's hand-waving.
As far as I know, solute molecules work in a medicinal capacity by
bonding at certain sites on certain cells. Even if water molecules did
retain some structure beyond the dilution that relates to the solute
molecule, there seems to be no mode of action possibly once in the body.
And that water was been exposed to a bazillion solute molecules. How
are the memories of all those solutes erased from the water leaving only
the one you think you are testing?
s
Citizen Jimserac
wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:
OK, you are reverting to a chemical explanation which the paper
specifically says it has bypassed by utilizing an entirely structural
explanation involving the phyics of the material itself, if I
understand him correctly.
Interestingly, the paper suggests that the models typically used to
understand
water molecules are badly outdated and based on suppositions which
have been
superseded by modern research and he elaborates on this.
Unfortunately
my limited chemistry knowledge is woefully inadequate to even begin to
understand
all this. KInd of cute pictures though.
Citizen Jimserac
Jennifer Meyer-Mahoney
"Citizen Jimserac" <Jims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:daaaab8c-476c-43b5...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 24, 7:14 am, Ocean of Nuance <lizzardwomanRM...@nc.rr.com>
wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:
> > Any thoughts on THIS:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>OK, you are reverting to a chemical explanation which the paper
>specifically says it has bypassed by utilizing an entirely structural
>explanation involving the phyics of the material itself, if I
>understand him correctly.
>Interestingly, the paper suggests that the models typically used to
>understand
>water molecules are badly outdated and based on suppositions which
>have been
>superseded by modern research and he elaborates on this.
>Unfortunately
>my limited chemistry knowledge is woefully inadequate to even begin to
>understand
>all this. KInd of cute pictures though.
>Citizen Jimserac
Ok, I'm going to regret getting involved in this but...here I go.
You're right Jim, you don't know enough about chemistry to understand that a
statement that one is going to look at the structure of a substance using
physics or materials science rather than chemistry is pretty much
impossible. Chemistry is the study of how elements combine to form molecules
and how molecules interact with each other. In other words, material science
is a subset of physical chemistry. Saying that you can ignore hundreds of
years of chemical research because you are looking at the purely physical
way in which molecules in a liquid state are arranged is nonsensical because
chemistry is the study of how molecules interact both in a pure state
(consider x-ray crystallography) and when in contact with dissimilar
molecules (consider dye or colloidal chemistry) and even when affected by
electromagnetic radiation of some type be it heat, light, electrical
current, or magnetic forces (electrochemistry, organometallics).
H2O crystals were some of the first thing studied by x-ray crystallographers
when that technology was invented in the 1960s. Because we have so much of
it and understand it so well, H2O is often the first thing studied when a
new tool is developed ( see Nuclear magnetic radiography in the 1970s). I
don't have to go look at the pictures that this person is referencing
because I've seen the homeopathy nuts misuse x-ray crystallography pictures
of H2O crystals before because they don't understand the art or the science
of growing crystals. The purer the substance and the slower the rate of
crystallization the smaller and more perfectly lined up the crystals will
be. The warmer a crystal becomes the looser the connections between the
molecules and the less orderly until it transitions to a liquid. Liquids are
not uniform but contain some areas that retain the crystalline structure,
lots of them just above the melting point, fewer just below the boiling
point. This is not evidence that the liquid was effected in some magical way
by some no longer present solute. Some substances form different crystal
structures when an electric current is passed through the media during
crystallization, others form different structures based on the amount of
pressure exerted on the substance during crystallization. All of which means
that you can create huge variances in crystal pattern without having to
resort to explanations that require belief in anything other than the basic
laws of physics.
Scientists are not infallible. Some get involved in things far outside their
area of expertise and develop theories that make no sense (see Linus Pauling
and vitamin C). Some find an interesting phenomena and come up with a very
novel somewhat far fetched explanation to explain things that are not within
their normal field of expertise and then can't fill in all the necessary
gaps(see cold fusion which put everyone off relativistic level
electro-chemical research for years). And some simply have an agenda and
disregard evidence that does not support their theories whether
intentionally and maliciously or through simple human nature. That's why we
have scientific journals and methods are explained so that everyone can
attempt to reproduce those results and pick apart the theory and see if they
can apply it elsewhere or come up with an alternate theory that explains all
the results.
Jennifer
Citizen Jimserac
wrote:
> Ok, I'm going to regret getting involved in this but...here I go.
>
> You're right Jim, you don't know enough about chemistry to understand that a
> statement that one is going to look at the structure of a substance using
> physics or materials science rather than chemistry is pretty much
> impossible. Chemistry is the study of how elements combine to form molecules
> and how molecules interact with each other. In other words, material science
> is a subset of physical chemistry. Saying that you can ignore hundreds of
> years of chemical research because you are looking at the purely physical
> way in which molecules in a liquid state are arranged is nonsensical because
> chemistry is the study of how molecules interact both in a pure state
> (consider x-ray crystallography) and when in contact with dissimilar
> molecules (consider dye or colloidal chemistry) and even when affected by
> electromagnetic radiation of some type be it heat, light, electrical
> current, or magnetic forces (electrochemistry, organometallics).
Your explanation is fine with me, I'm well aware that what Roy
proposes
is completely speculative at this stage and thank you for the
explanation.
>
> H2O crystals were some of the first thing studied by x-ray crystallographers
> when that technology was invented in the 1960s. Because we have so much of
> it and understand it so well, H2O is often the first thing studied when a
> new tool is developed ( see Nuclear magnetic radiography in the 1970s). I
> don't have to go look at the pictures that this person is referencing
> because I've seen the homeopathy nuts misuse x-ray crystallography pictures
> of H2O crystals before because they don't understand the art or the science
> of growing crystals.
Again, fine with me, I'm the beginner here and obviously will do more
reading -
but I DO note in passing that Dr. Roy was the author of an
internationally famous
textbook on (surpirse!!) crystalline cheimistry.
>The purer the substance and the slower the rate of
> crystallization the smaller and more perfectly lined up the crystals will
> be. The warmer a crystal becomes the looser the connections between the
> molecules and the less orderly until it transitions to a liquid. Liquids are
> not uniform but contain some areas that retain the crystalline structure,
> lots of them just above the melting point, fewer just below the boiling
> point. This is not evidence that the liquid was effected in some magical way
> by some no longer present solute. Some substances form different crystal
> structures when an electric current is passed through the media during
> crystallization, others form different structures based on the amount of
> pressure exerted on the substance during crystallization. All of which means
> that you can create huge variances in crystal pattern without having to
> resort to explanations that require belief in anything other than the basic
> laws of physics.
Sounds emininetly reasonable to me. Do you have any opinions on the
water anomalies?
> Scientists are not infallible. Some get involved in things far outside their
> area of expertise and develop theories that make no sense (see Linus Pauling
> and vitamin C). Some find an interesting phenomena and come up with a very
> novel somewhat far fetched explanation to explain things that are not within
> their normal field of expertise and then can't fill in all the necessary
> gaps(see cold fusion which put everyone off relativistic level
> electro-chemical research for years). And some simply have an agenda and
> disregard evidence that does not support their theories whether
> intentionally and maliciously or through simple human nature. That's why we
> have scientific journals and methods are explained so that everyone can
> attempt to reproduce those results and pick apart the theory and see if they
> can apply it elsewhere or come up with an alternate theory that explains all
> the results.
Yes this is quite true, after a time even Einstein saw himself as some
sort
of philosopher-politician for world peace.
I again thank you for you patient explanations.
Citizen Jimserac
Ocean of Nuance
Hey Jim,
This song includes a mention of homeopathy...
s
Citizen Jimserac
wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:
>
> Hey Jim,
>
> This song includes a mention of homeopathy...
>
>
> s
Ha.
Citizen Jimserac
Homeopathy does absolutely nothing but the "side effect" is the cure.
Citizen Jimserac
Well ON, I think the thing that you, Jenifer M-M and others are
missing about
my approach is that I'm applying simple common sense to the
entire package "deal" of Homeopathy and neither the extremism of the
rejection of the possibility of Homeopathy, well characterized by
J M-M's well reasoned comments, nor the rejection of its obviousl
clinical successes seems to me to jive with reality.
To find out easily, look in the nooks and crannies of forgotten
history.
OK, let us assume that Humans are easily deluded, that the Homeopathic
improvements in their health, even in some naughty cholera epidiemics
was just placebo effect or the bad bad treatments
of the old school medicine etc.. But what about animals?
Do THEY too understand that they are being given a Homeopathic
remedy from a veterinarian and then think to themselves, "ah,
I will certainly begin feeling better soon after taking this, I am SO
happy
my master has gotten this for me". I DON'T think so.
Here, look in "Veterinary Homoeopathy in Its Application to the Horse"
By John Sutcliffe Hurndall
published in A.D. 1896
(google book search)
(see! not quite so off topic after all!!) and you will find numerous
examples of horsey ailments improved or, dare I say it, cured by
Homeopathic remedies.
For example Homeopathic Aconite being used to cure Horsey fever.
You will see exact doseages suggested and predictions of how
long it will take for the Horse's fever to break and this man was
a skilled Veterinary surgeon and doctor in his day - hardly some
charlatan.
Now I am perfectly willling to be skeptical along with everyone else
and believe
that maybe, just maybe, some self deception and other factors account
for the human
successes of Homeopathy but animals too? It strains one credulity to
believe that
the owners of Horses by the THOUSANDS who used Homeopathy all suffered
from the collective delusion that their animals improved after using
Homeopathy.
My skepticism, unlike the majority of the Homeopathy skeptics,
operates
in all directions, even directed against the superficiality and
cupidity of
anti-Homeopathy arguments which ignore these things.
See? (probably not but, what the heck, I thought I would try).
Citizen Jimserac
(As usual a voice in the wilderness, a lone android in search of the
truth!!)
CMNewell
<Jims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>was just placebo effect or the bad bad treatments
>of the old school medicine etc.. But what about animals?
>Do THEY too understand that they are being given a Homeopathic
>remedy from a veterinarian and then think to themselves, "ah,
>I will certainly begin feeling better soon after taking this, I am SO
>happy
>my master has gotten this for me". I DON'T think so.
>
>Here, look in "Veterinary Homoeopathy in Its Application to the Horse"
>By John Sutcliffe Hurndall
>published in A.D. 1896
>(google book search)
>(see! not quite so off topic after all!!) and you will find numerous
>examples of horsey ailments improved or, dare I say it, cured by
>Homeopathic remedies.
>
>For example Homeopathic Aconite being used to cure Horsey fever.
What exactly is "horsey fever"?
Citizen Jimserac
Here (from page 45 of "Verterinary Homeopathy in Its Application to the
Horse"):
"This malady, as the name indicates, is a febrile condition affecting
the whole body generally; and is distinct from that kind of fever which
accompanies or presages an inflammation of some special organ..."
"Symptoms - Heightened temperature varying from 104 to 106 degrees..."
See the book for other symptoms and details.
The indicated treatment, according to the author, is Aconite, a certain
number of drops given every hour for 3 total doses which the author
claims will cause the temperature to "probably drop two degrees in a few
hours; after which Aconite 3X ten drops at intervals of four hours will
serve to complete the cure and in 5 or 6 days the horse will be
convalescent."
Now, my point is simply that if people were actually using this
and it worked then it could NOT POSSIBLY have been placebo effect.
The book is FILLED with lists of horse ailments and appropriate
Homeopathic remedies with detailed prognosis - the author
could not have made this stuff up and is obviously speaking
from experience.
Now WHAT are you going to tell me, that the author, an expert in his
field was a charlatan? self deluded? unscientific?
Purposely wrote a book of complete nonsense?
Citizen Jimserac
JC Dill
> Now, my point is simply that if people were actually using this
> and it worked then it could NOT POSSIBLY have been placebo effect.
Unless it was a controlled double-blind study, there's no way to know if
"it worked" - horses get well from all sorts of maladies without any
type of treatment at all. That's why they (and we) have an immune
system that responds to sickness and heals the body.
> The book is FILLED with lists of horse ailments and appropriate
> Homeopathic remedies with detailed prognosis - the author
> could not have made this stuff up and is obviously speaking
> from experience.
>
> Now WHAT are you going to tell me, that the author, an expert in his
> field was a charlatan? self deluded? unscientific?
Since I haven't read the book, I can't say for certain, but I suspect
that "unscientific" fits the bill.
There are a plethora of products sold at your local feedstore that are
supposedly useful in helping cure various horse maladies. Consider
supplements and products placed on hoofs to improve hoof quality. Most
of them fail miserably when tested in a controlled double-blind study.
These things are widely *believed* to help with poor hoofs - even by
people who should know better (trainers, breeders, vets, etc.). But
they are rarely used in isolation - there are usually many other things
that are changed at the same time that are likely to be responsible for
the increased quality of the hoof. For instance, someone buys a horse
with poor hoofs and starts using Supplement A or Goop B, and a few
months later the horse has better hoofs. They attribute the improved
hoof quality to the supplement or goop - it couldn't possibly be due to
A) better farrier care, B) better hay, C) more turnout D) more exercise,
E) better footing, etc... When you take a barn full of horses that are
all receiving the same care and feed and you feed Supplement A to 1/2 of
the horses for 6 months, and then evaluate the horses (without knowing
which ones received the supplement) there is usually no statistical
improvement for the horses fed the supplement. In the case of Goops,
often there is a marked deterioration in the hoofs that get Gooped!
This is why I strongly support Farrier's Formula and TuffStuff for
improving hoofs - both of these have been proven in scientific studies
to actually improve hoof quality. I also support Durasole despite the
lack of scientific study because of strong anecdotal evidence, but would
love to see a scientific study to prove its effectiveness.
I'm very open to the possibility that homeopathy works in a method we
don't yet understand. But the scientific studies to show that it works
at all (never mind the method) are currently woefully scarce.
jc
Ocean of Nuance
> On Oct 25, 9:24 am, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well ON, I think the thing that you, Jenifer M-M and others are
> missing about
> my approach is that I'm applying simple common sense to the
> entire package "deal" of Homeopathy and neither the extremism of the
> rejection of the possibility of Homeopathy, well characterized by
> J M-M's well reasoned comments, nor the rejection of its obviousl
> clinical successes seems to me to jive with reality.
>
> To find out easily, look in the nooks and crannies of forgotten
> history.
> OK, let us assume that Humans are easily deluded, that the Homeopathic
> improvements in their health, even in some naughty cholera epidiemics
> was just placebo effect or the bad bad treatments
> of the old school medicine etc.. But what about animals?
> Do THEY too understand that they are being given a Homeopathic
> remedy from a veterinarian and then think to themselves, "ah,
> I will certainly begin feeling better soon after taking this, I am SO
> happy
> my master has gotten this for me". I DON'T think so.
W.R.T. putative animal successes, I think they can be completely
explained by a combination of:
1. recording the hits and not the misses (not saying folks are trying
to do this...it just somehow often gets done)
2. folks not knowing WTF they are looking at
3. A natural cure rate that is lumped into the "success" category.
> Here, look in "Veterinary Homoeopathy in Its Application to the Horse"
> By John Sutcliffe Hurndall
> published in A.D. 1896
> (google book search)
> (see! not quite so off topic after all!!) and you will find numerous
> examples of horsey ailments improved or, dare I say it, cured by
> Homeopathic remedies.
Let me tell you a story. One of my doctoral advisers was a top PhD
student at a top school. He designed an experiment, carried it out, and
wrote it up as a chapter in his dissertation. His doctoral adviser
flipped right to the methods section, read it, and tossed the chapter
into the circular file right in front of my adviser.
The problem was QA/QC and controlling the experiments.
That guy went on to be a very famous scientist. Beyond being farking
brilliant, I suspect the experience of having his chapter tossed into
the trash made a big impression on him. Afterward, he became meticulous
in his sensitivity to all angles of confoundment. And it was reflected
in his later work.
Just hearing this tale made a huge impression on me and started me on a
path of trying to be meticulous and think outside the box w.r.t. QA/QC.
In my opinion, a large swath of work in my field is plagued by bad
QA/QC. There is plenty out there that is likely just flat wrong or at
least we can't know if it is right at this point.
> For example Homeopathic Aconite being used to cure Horsey fever.
> You will see exact doseages suggested and predictions of how
> long it will take for the Horse's fever to break and this man was
> a skilled Veterinary surgeon and doctor in his day - hardly some
> charlatan.
There is medicine and there is research.
> Now I am perfectly willing to be skeptical along with everyone else
> and believe
> that maybe, just maybe, some self deception and other factors account
> for the human
> successes of Homeopathy but animals too? It strains one credulity to
> believe that
> the owners of Horses by the THOUSANDS who used Homeopathy all suffered
> from the collective delusion that their animals improved after using
> Homeopathy.
Absent training of the mind and the eye, folks can't tell a hit from a miss.
> My skepticism, unlike the majority of the Homeopathy skeptics,
> operates
> in all directions, even directed against the superficiality and
> cupidity of
> anti-Homeopathy arguments which ignore these things.
>
> See? (probably not but, what the heck, I thought I would try).
>
> Citizen Jimserac
> (As usual a voice in the wilderness, a lone android in search of the
> truth!!)
What drives your interest in this if I might be so bold?
sharon
Hunter Hampton
wrote:
>What exactly is "horsey fever"?
LOL, I read that and thought to myself... isn't that what I've had
since I was 4 years old......
Hunter
Citizen Jimserac
>
> What drives your interest in this if I might be so bold?
>
> sharon
You don't want to know.
Citizen Jimserac
.
Citizen Jimserac
You're a horse??
Citizen Jimserac
Ocean of Nuance
People who are taken with horses are sometimes referred to as having
"horse fever."
If you have it, you can't quit it. Like a chemical addiction. Like gay
cowboys.
The brain science types are going to identify the brain neurochemical
pathways on this eventually. :)
It's all brain science. The rest is commentary.
sharon
Citizen Jimserac
Ah!!!
Thanks!
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:30:14 -0400, Ocean of Nuance
> <lizzardw...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>> I would appreciate seeing a homeopathy person address the Brownian
>> motion issue.
>>
>> sharon
>
> I would appreciate seeing a physical chemist or physicist describe
> the extended structural properties of common or garden water
> satisfactorily. This is not to bolster the strange claims of the
> homeopathic enthusiasts, just to point out that the physical
> effects that Sharon believes are crucial, are not.
>
Agreed.
Cit J.
Bill Kambic
wrote:
>> Now WHAT are you going to tell me, that the author, an expert in his
>> field was a charlatan? self deluded? unscientific?
>
>Since I haven't read the book, I can't say for certain, but I suspect
>that "unscientific" fits the bill.
19th Century Science and 21st Century Science are related, but not
nearly clones. A lot of 19th Century scientific observation is quite
good (indeed some of the drawings and description of flora and fauna
are truly amazing) but some of the conclusions drawn are not always
accurate.
Indeed, even us modern horsemen/women engage in less than rigorous
scientific language when we talk about "shipping fever" or "moon
blindness" or other conditions. We sometimes do it because we just
get sloppy in language. Our ancestors did it because they didn't know
any better. Not because they were stupid, but because they lacked the
ABILITY to know better.
A 19th Century MD or PhD might easily make clear observations and draw
inaccurate conclusions.
<snipped for brevity>
>I'm very open to the possibility that homeopathy works in a method we
>don't yet understand. But the scientific studies to show that it works
>at all (never mind the method) are currently woefully scarce.
There was claim that homeopathy was instrumental in reducing the death
rate both in the London cholera epidemic of the 1860s and the flu
pandemic of the WWI period. So I decided to follow the evidence some
to see where it lead.
Since "camphor" (sp) was noted as an effective agent in the
homeopathic literature I decided to follow it. What I learned was
that the recommended dose for cholera was 5 units on a cube of sugar
and washed down with some water at 15 min. intervals. This dosage
appeared in a number of places, including texts from India, where a
lot of this stuff seems to come.
More modern medical literature does note that camphor has therapeutic
effects (can stabilize hear arrhythmia, for example) but that these
effects are inconsistent (at least three researchers noted this over
the years).
Cholera kills by dehydrating the victim (through vomiting and
diarrhea).
Now we have a question: was it the camphor that killed the bug or was
it the body's own defenses that killed the bug when supported by
regular nutrition (the sugar) and fluid (the water)?
As to the flu pandemic, there were claims that troop ships that had
homeopathic doctors had lower death rates than other troop ships.
Since I've actually spent time on a troop ship (if only a couple of
days) I've got some insight, here. I also know something about
transporting troops by sea (learned long ago). In WWI most troops
were moved on chartered vessels. The captain of each ship had his own
standards of cleanliness, messing, berthing, etc. A very minimum
standard was laid down by the Army Transportation Command and a
charter fee paid for the movement. The less the ship spends on food,
water, toilet facilities, etc. the move money it makes.
So we have a question: were the influenza death rate differences due
to homeopathy or differencing standards of cleanliness? Unless you
can study the same ship/medical mix over multiple voyages you can't
know one way or the other.
So, once again, the "proof" offered for homeopathic effectiveness is
very soft, indeed.
That does not mean it doesn't work; only that there's no evidence that
it does.
Ocean of Nuance
These are EXCELLENT examples of how a failure to control experiments or
experimental observations leads to an inability to accurately assign cause.
Could not be clearer.
sharon
JC Dill
> That does not mean it doesn't work; only that there's no evidence that
> it does.
I wouldn't say there is "no evidence" - I would say that there is some
evidence but more studies are needed as the evidence seen so far is not
well presented. From the National Institute of Health (NIH) website:
Clinical Trials on Homeopathy Published from 1998 to 2002
<http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#a1>
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Clinical Trials of Homeopathy
<http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#a2>
and:
<http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/>
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.
Jennifer Meyer-Mahoney
On Oct 25, 9:24 am, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well ON, I think the thing that you, Jenifer M-M and others are
missing about
my approach is that I'm applying simple common sense to the
entire package "deal" of Homeopathy and neither the extremism of the
rejection of the possibility of Homeopathy, well characterized by
J M-M's well reasoned comments, nor the rejection of its obviousl
clinical successes seems to me to jive with reality.
Citizen Jimserac
(As usual a voice in the wilderness, a lone android in search of the
truth!!)
What obvious clinical successes? Please show me a well designed double blind
study done on a statistically significant scale that demonstrates that
homeopathy works better than a placebo.
Now lets look at that common sense idea. You believe that water remembers
things that have been disolved in it even if those things are no longer
present and that this memory permits the water to have some medicinal
property. Ok, so working through this using common sense. Water is part of a
huge system or chain in which rain falls from the sky, hits leaves, grass,
dirty streets, sewage treatment plants, etc on its way down then either
sinks into the ground where it contacts feces, dead things, toxic minerals,
etc before errupting from the ground as a spring or runs off into a storm
drain or stream which makes its way to the ocean where the water evaporates
and winds back up in a cloud. How do you know or control what the water
remembers? Why would it remember that you put a drop of poison iy extract in
it but not all the agrochemical runoff, motor oil residue, and dog feces? If
it retains its memory of whatever solute the homeopathic practioner put in
it long enough to get through the intestinal tract of a human or for that
matter a dog or a horse and get to the affected area why doesn't it remember
everything else its been in contact with? How is everyday tap water not
giving us large doses of homeopathic medicine or for that matter poisons?
Can you answer any of those questions without resorting to ipse dixit or
mystical hand waving?
Jennifer
Jennifer Meyer-Mahoney
"Citizen Jimserac" <jp4...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LbSdnSPEesi7DpnU...@comcast.com...
> CMNewell wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:11:42 -0700 (PDT), Citizen Jimserac
>> <Jims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> was just placebo effect or the bad bad treatments
>>> of the old school medicine etc.. But what about animals?
>>> Do THEY too understand that they are being given a Homeopathic
>>> remedy from a veterinarian and then think to themselves, "ah,
>>> I will certainly begin feeling better soon after taking this, I am SO
>>> happy
>>> my master has gotten this for me". I DON'T think so.
>>>
>>> Here, look in "Veterinary Homoeopathy in Its Application to the Horse"
>>> By John Sutcliffe Hurndall
>>> published in A.D. 1896
>>> (google book search)
>>> (see! not quite so off topic after all!!) and you will find numerous
>>> examples of horsey ailments improved or, dare I say it, cured by
>>> Homeopathic remedies.
>>>
>>> For example Homeopathic Aconite being used to cure Horsey fever.
>>
>> What exactly is "horsey fever"?
>>
>>
> Sorry, my dumb term for what the author calls "Simple Fever".
>
> and it worked then it could NOT POSSIBLY have been placebo effect.
>
> The book is FILLED with lists of horse ailments and appropriate
> Homeopathic remedies with detailed prognosis - the author
> could not have made this stuff up and is obviously speaking
> from experience.
>
> Now WHAT are you going to tell me, that the author, an expert in his field
> was a charlatan? self deluded? unscientific?
> Purposely wrote a book of complete nonsense?
>
>
> Citizen Jimserac
The book was written in 1896. People still believed that evil air caused
disease back then. They had nothing that did work. Antibiotics weren't
developed until World War 1. They had no x-rays. They had no topical
anesthetics. Many doctors did not understand the necessity of washing to
prevent the spread of disease at that point. I'm sure what he was doing was
state of the art for his day and that he probably had the very best is
leeches and blood letting equipment but that doesn't make it a valid mode of
treatment now that we have options that actually work.
Jennifer
Ocean of Nuance
Not to mention that every glass of water contains at least one molecule
of water that passed through Alexander the Great's bladder (or something
like that). :)
We can know from simple inspection (using your reasoning) that
homeopathy can't work just like we can use simple inspection of the
White Cliffs of Dover that young earth creationism is right out as in
can't possibly be correct.
Some things are obviously wrong in some many ways, not just a few.
sharon
Citizen Jimserac
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:14:54 -0700, JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Now WHAT are you going to tell me, that the author, an expert in his
>>> field was a charlatan? self deluded? unscientific?
>> Since I haven't read the book, I can't say for certain, but I suspect
>> that "unscientific" fits the bill.
>
> 19th Century Science and 21st Century Science are related, but not
> nearly clones. A lot of 19th Century scientific observation is quite
> good (indeed some of the drawings and description of flora and fauna
> are truly amazing) but some of the conclusions drawn are not always
> accurate.
I agree!
>
> Indeed, even us modern horsemen/women engage in less than rigorous
> scientific language when we talk about "shipping fever" or "moon
> blindness" or other conditions. We sometimes do it because we just
> get sloppy in language. Our ancestors did it because they didn't know
> any better. Not because they were stupid, but because they lacked the
> ABILITY to know better.
OK this is fine - I'm not a horseman but understand what you are saying.
Just please do not fall into the trap of "evidence" based
medicine. The current trend is to pretend that the scientific studies
which have grown up around proving pharmaceutical drugs can be extended
to all of medicine giving it a delusional "evidence" base
and then contrasting that with the "unscientific" (sic)
alternative systems of medicine. Such is NOT the case and there are NO
double blinded randomized placebo controlled studies of knee
replacements, heart surgeries nor chemotherapy - only related tests,
perhaps on animals ( I OPPOSE this) so the final arbiters of "evidence"
rests NOT with the laboratory experimenters but with (surprise!) MD's
Surgeons and the like, just exactly the folks who you would want to
decide - the practitioners.
>
> A 19th Century MD or PhD might easily make clear observations and draw
> inaccurate conclusions.
Ditto 20 century ones.
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>
>> I'm very open to the possibility that homeopathy works in a method we
>> don't yet understand. But the scientific studies to show that it works
>> at all (never mind the method) are currently woefully scarce.
Agreed.
You do not address the issue of the proper methodology for that testing -
it may very well be NOT double blinded randomized placebo controlled
tests which, you may recall, were instituted in part as a response
to the thalidomide scandal.
>
> There was claim that homeopathy was instrumental in reducing the death
> rate both in the London cholera epidemic of the 1860s and the flu
> pandemic of the WWI period. So I decided to follow the evidence some
> to see where it lead.
So did I - it is QUITE fascinating and I'm glad you brought it up.
The epidemic in question, was, I believe, the 1854 London epidemic.
At first I believed, as is the common assumption, that the standard
medical practice of the times was so bad that the Homeopaths, by
essentially doing nothing (remedies assumed to be "just water")
outperformed the standard medicine crowd.
But the statistics show something else.
See the following link for the intriguing details:
http://laughingmysocksoff.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/sock-horror-in-cholera-statistics/
In a typical cholera epidemic, the mortality rate for those that do no
treatment at all is 60% or so (see any standard textbook).
The standard medicine practitioners typically had a 30% mortality
rate, or worse, among their patients.
The Homeopaths, however, seem to have consistently gotten a mortality
rate of 15% or better. Sometimes MUCH better.
The reason we have these statistics is that after the epidemic
there was public clamor for finding the cause.
Easy to understand since once the extreme diarrhea started,
a person could die in a matter of hours from dehydration.
Parliament asked the National Health Commission to bring back
statistics on the treatment results and they did - but the statistics
for the Homeopaths was omitted. Parliament got wind of this and one of
themembers demanded that THOSE statistics be supplied. They
were.
In addition, a standard medical doctor and opponent of Homeopathy was
sent to the London Homeopathic Hospital to observe their methods and
report back. In his report, he stated unequivocally that he had started
his investigation as a complete skeptic of Homeopathy but after
examining several cases under treatment by the Homeopathic doctors
in various states of the disease he stated that he himself, were he to
get cholera, would without hesitation entrust his care to them.
>
> Since "camphor" (sp) was noted as an effective agent in the
> homeopathic literature I decided to follow it. What I learned was
> that the recommended dose for cholera was 5 units on a cube of sugar
> and washed down with some water at 15 min. intervals. This dosage
> appeared in a number of places, including texts from India, where a
> lot of this stuff seems to come.
This is interesting. I've heard it was distributed in tiny ampules
and that they gave out over 1,000 of them to people clamoring for
assistance who could not be accommodated at the hospital. I wish
we had more details.
>
> More modern medical literature does note that camphor has therapeutic
> effects (can stabilize hear arrhythmia, for example) but that these
> effects are inconsistent (at least three researchers noted this over
> the years).
>
> Cholera kills by dehydrating the victim (through vomiting and
> diarrhea).
>
> Now we have a question: was it the camphor that killed the bug or was
> it the body's own defenses that killed the bug when supported by
> regular nutrition (the sugar) and fluid (the water)?
That's the part that intrigues the hell out of me.
The answer to that question could hold the key to explaining Homeopathy
or to proving it a chimera. Needless to say, reports of Homeopathy
success against malaria, dengue fever (including the hemorraghic
variation) and other infectious diseases would be explained
(or debunked) as well. If chimerical, than we have lost
some research money and time, perhaps learning something
along the way, perhaps not - BUT if real, IMAGINE the implications.
>
> As to the flu pandemic, there were claims that troop ships that had
> homeopathic doctors had lower death rates than other troop ships.
> Since I've actually spent time on a troop ship (if only a couple of
> days) I've got some insight, here. I also know something about
> transporting troops by sea (learned long ago). In WWI most troops
> were moved on chartered vessels. The captain of each ship had his own
> standards of cleanliness, messing, berthing, etc. A very minimum
> standard was laid down by the Army Transportation Command and a
> charter fee paid for the movement. The less the ship spends on food,
> water, toilet facilities, etc. the move money it makes.
>
> So we have a question: were the influenza death rate differences due
> to homeopathy or differencing standards of cleanliness? Unless you
> can study the same ship/medical mix over multiple voyages you can't
> know one way or the other.
>
> So, once again, the "proof" offered for homeopathic effectiveness is
> very soft, indeed.
>
> That does not mean it doesn't work; only that there's no evidence that
> it does.
Partially agree here and partially disagree but we're so off topic
that I'll shut up here.
Citizen Jimserac
Ocean of Nuance
> Bill Kambic wrote:
(snip)
>> Indeed, even us modern horsemen/women engage in less than rigorous
>> scientific language when we talk about "shipping fever" or "moon
>> blindness" or other conditions. We sometimes do it because we just
>> get sloppy in language. Our ancestors did it because they didn't know
>> any better. Not because they were stupid, but because they lacked the
>> ABILITY to know better.
>
> OK this is fine - I'm not a horseman but understand what you are saying.
> Just please do not fall into the trap of "evidence" based
> medicine. The current trend is to pretend that the scientific studies
> which have grown up around proving pharmaceutical drugs can be extended
> to all of medicine giving it a delusional "evidence" base
> and then contrasting that with the "unscientific" (sic)
> alternative systems of medicine. Such is NOT the case and there are NO
> double blinded randomized placebo controlled studies of knee
> replacements, heart surgeries nor chemotherapy - only related tests,
> perhaps on animals ( I OPPOSE this) so the final arbiters of "evidence"
> rests NOT with the laboratory experimenters but with (surprise!) MD's
> Surgeons and the like, just exactly the folks who you would want to
> decide - the practitioners.
Look, there is evidence-based science and there is faith. Take your
pick. One is real and one is not.
"This is why the results of scientific research tend to converge, and
why religious dogmas tend to diverge. One is dealing with something
real, and the other is not." -- Denis Loubet
(snip)
> That's the part that intrigues the hell out of me.
> The answer to that question could hold the key to explaining Homeopathy
> or to proving it a chimera. Needless to say, reports of Homeopathy
> success against malaria, dengue fever (including the hemorraghic
> variation) and other infectious diseases would be explained
> (or debunked) as well. If chimerical, than we have lost
> some research money and time, perhaps learning something
> along the way, perhaps not - BUT if real, IMAGINE the implications.
Speaking as someone who had Dengue, if homeopathy was effective against
it, we would know it by know. The clamor would be deafening. :0
sharon
Jill
>
> Look, there is evidence-based science and there is faith.
And there is a huge amount of experience which is evidence, and is tested,
but, frustratingly, not done with methodology that is acceptable by some
sectors of the medical / veterinary world.
There are plenty of doctors and veterinarians who DO understand the value of
homeopathy.
It has been shown to work, millions of times, over centuries, but its terms
of reference are not as straightforward as current drugs.
The choice of treatment depends on much more than the most obvious clinical
symptoms: background, emotion, response, many more ephemoral factors which
are pretty well impossible to enter into current study categories.
Some things have crept into every day use, but the more powerful treatments
are also ones that need to be dispensed with care.
That is why a homeopathic consult can be over an hour.
--
regards
Jill Bowis
Domestic Poultry and Waterfowl Solutions
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine Nursery
Seasonal Farm Food
http://www.kintaline.co.uk
Citizen Jimserac
False dichotomy ON. You've fallen for the package deal, hook line and
sinker. In Acupuncture alone there are over 30 years of neurological
studies proving efficacy. There are even studies showing, for example,
that when an eye related point on the foot is needled, NMR of the brain
shows visual cortex activity - and when a nearby non-acuupncture point
is needled there is no such activity.
The dismissal of ALL alternative medicine as "faith" based
is part of the package which E. Ernst and a number of rabidly
anti-alternative medicine activists in Europe
and here in the states (see "Orac's" blog) have made
as the central tenet of THEIR faith.
It is unscientific. Are you aware, for example,
that while there is no known theory for the action of Homeopathy
remedies, there are standard pharmaceutical drugs which are
routinely prescribed for which (surprise!) the exact
mechanism of action is wholly unknown. There are
hundreds of them. Up till several decades ago,
aspirin was one of them - prescribed hundreds of thousands
of times but the mode of action unknown - where's the evidence
base now? It is, in fact, exactly the same as with alternative
medicine - the PRACTITIONERS DECIDE.
The creation of a double standard, which allows certain things in
standard medicine but forbids them in alternative medicine,
is part of this deception.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
Fallacy, Jen M-M.
There were indeed a great many stupid beliefs in that era JUST AS THERE
IS NOW. Did you hear the one about the pyloric ulcer researcher who
thought he had proved his research but ended up, out of sheer
desperation, EATING some of the bacteria and then demonstrating that
he had ulcer symptoms to FINALLY SILENCE THE SKEPTICS?
It was 10 YEARS before all practitioners finally got it, that the
cause was bacterial and adjusted their treatments accordingly.
So great was the entrenched WRONG idea.
With the details given in that book, for treatments, on Horses,
you would have to assume that the author - a skilled surgeon,
had completely deluded himself on every single disease and every single
remedy and every single prognosis - and I don't think that is the case
given the detail course of tretments and prognoses - he must have
tried and used theses remedies and they must have worked;
Go to Google book search, download and read some of the book -
it will have many out of date ideas I'm sure, being 100 years
old but still there are Horse diseases that are the same now as
then - they don't change.
Your argument, unlike your excellent chemical descriptions is
based on the premise that it is all wrong and you then draw
conclusions from that flawed premise. This we cannot accept.
Citizen Jimserac
Ocean of Nuance
> Ocean of Nuance wrote:
>>
>> Look, there is evidence-based science and there is faith.
>
> And there is a huge amount of experience which is evidence, and is
> tested, but, frustratingly, not done with methodology that is acceptable
> by some sectors of the medical / veterinary world.
Experience is know to be faulty and unreliable. Here is a good
explanation about it in a different context...
From:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2007/03/Blogalogue-Sam-Harris-And-Andrew-Sullivan-Part-Two.aspx
(near top of page)
"Even seeing what is plainly before our eyes can be difficult (or
impossible). Consider the following visual illusion (Roger Shepard's
"Turning the Tables"):
These tabletops are exactly the same size and shape. Once you have used
a ruler or tracing paper to satisfy yourself that this is true, they
will still look different to you, based upon the way your brain has been
hard-wired to interpret spatial cues. It seems quite likely that every
person who has ever lived would perceive these figures as being
different in shape and size-a far higher percentage than believe in God.
The fact is that our intuitions are not always a reliable guide to the
truth; and in certain situations, they can be relied upon to be wrong.
So why should we think that our inability/reluctance to conceive of our
own nonexistence offers an indication of what happens after death?" --
Sam Harris
Is there a difference between religion and homeopathy?
s
Bill Kambic
<jp4...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snipped for brevity here and there>
>> Indeed, even us modern horsemen/women engage in less than rigorous
>> scientific language when we talk about "shipping fever" or "moon
>> blindness" or other conditions. We sometimes do it because we just
>> get sloppy in language. Our ancestors did it because they didn't know
>> any better. Not because they were stupid, but because they lacked the
>> ABILITY to know better.
>
>OK this is fine - I'm not a horseman but understand what you are saying.
>Just please do not fall into the trap of "evidence" based
>medicine.
The TRAP of evidence based medicine?!?!?!?!?!
The current trend is to pretend that the scientific studies
>which have grown up around proving pharmaceutical drugs can be extended
>to all of medicine giving it a delusional "evidence" base
>and then contrasting that with the "unscientific" (sic)
>alternative systems of medicine.
Brother, I don't think the FDA and other scientific organization are
the ones who are "delusional."
Such is NOT the case and there are NO
>double blinded randomized placebo controlled studies of knee
>replacements, heart surgeries nor chemotherapy - only related tests,
>perhaps on animals ( I OPPOSE this) so the final arbiters of "evidence"
>rests NOT with the laboratory experimenters but with (surprise!) MD's
>Surgeons and the like, just exactly the folks who you would want to
>decide - the practitioners.
No, not at all. Your knowledge of the process for deveopment of
anything is seriously defective. So's your knowledge of history.
>> A 19th Century MD or PhD might easily make clear observations and draw
>> inaccurate conclusions.
>
>Ditto 20 century ones.
We are in the 21st Century, but I take your point. The difference is
that scientific knowledge is widely available and failures can be
quickly noted. Remember cold fusion and Korean cloning?
>Agreed.
>You do not address the issue of the proper methodology for that testing -
>it may very well be NOT double blinded randomized placebo controlled
>tests which, you may recall, were instituted in part as a response
>to the thalidomide scandal.
The comment you are addressing is not mine, but the double blind
methodology does eliminate lots of random factors and leads more
surely, if not absolutely, to "causation."
>> There was claim that homeopathy was instrumental in reducing the death
>> rate both in the London cholera epidemic of the 1860s and the flu
>> pandemic of the WWI period. So I decided to follow the evidence some
>> to see where it lead.
>
>So did I - it is QUITE fascinating and I'm glad you brought it up.
>The epidemic in question, was, I believe, the 1854 London epidemic.
<balance snipped>
Relying on 19th statistics without 19th century medical records is a
dicey proposition. I've suggested an alternative explanation based
upon very cursory research. I would think that the advocates of
homeopaty, with a century to "massage" the problem, could do better on
issues of cause and effect.
>> Since "camphor" (sp) was noted as an effective agent in the
>> homeopathic literature I decided to follow it. What I learned was
>> that the recommended dose for cholera was 5 units on a cube of sugar
>> and washed down with some water at 15 min. intervals. This dosage
>> appeared in a number of places, including texts from India, where a
>> lot of this stuff seems to come.
>
>This is interesting. I've heard it was distributed in tiny ampules
>and that they gave out over 1,000 of them to people clamoring for
>assistance who could not be accommodated at the hospital. I wish
>we had more details.
The standard text I've found from the period (and it took me less than
10 min. on Google ot find them) all used the sugar/water method.
I, too, wish we had records to study but we don't. That's why numbers
standing alone don't help.
Afterall, 100% of the people whove ever eaten dill pickles have died.
Does this make dill pickles a toxic substance? Ya gotta look beyond
the numbers.
>> More modern medical literature does note that camphor has therapeutic
>> effects (can stabilize hear arrhythmia, for example) but that these
>> effects are inconsistent (at least three researchers noted this over
>> the years).
>>
>> Cholera kills by dehydrating the victim (through vomiting and
>> diarrhea).
>>
>> Now we have a question: was it the camphor that killed the bug or was
>> it the body's own defenses that killed the bug when supported by
>> regular nutrition (the sugar) and fluid (the water)?
>
>That's the part that intrigues the hell out of me.
>The answer to that question could hold the key to explaining Homeopathy
>or to proving it a chimera. Needless to say, reports of Homeopathy
>success against malaria, dengue fever (including the hemorraghic
>variation) and other infectious diseases would be explained
>(or debunked) as well. If chimerical, than we have lost
>some research money and time, perhaps learning something
>along the way, perhaps not - BUT if real, IMAGINE the implications.
Indeed. And in 100+++ years the supporters of homeapathy have failed
to do such research. To my skeptical mind they've failed for the same
reason the magnet heads, spiritualists, and assorted herbalists have
failed to do rigorious scientific testing: somebody would lose an
income opportunity. :-)
>Partially agree here and partially disagree but we're so off topic
>that I'll shut up here.
Probably a good program.
Bill Kambic
<ne...@NOSPAMkintaline.co.uk> wrote:
>Ocean of Nuance wrote:
>>
>> Look, there is evidence-based science and there is faith.
>
>And there is a huge amount of experience which is evidence, and is tested,
>but, frustratingly, not done with methodology that is acceptable by some
>sectors of the medical / veterinary world.
Well, no.
These folks have had 100+++ years to make their case. Does the fact
they they've not made raise any questions?
Ocean of Nuance
It is faith-based because it has been tested.
> It is unscientific. Are you aware, for example,
> that while there is no known theory for the action of Homeopathy
> remedies, there are standard pharmaceutical drugs which are
> routinely prescribed for which (surprise!) the exact
> mechanism of action is wholly unknown.
Yes I'm aware. Remember my example of Li for manic depression? No
known mechanism yet evidence it works (empirically).
There are
> hundreds of them. Up till several decades ago,
> aspirin was one of them - prescribed hundreds of thousands
> of times but the mode of action unknown - where's the evidence
> base now? It is, in fact, exactly the same as with alternative
> medicine - the PRACTITIONERS DECIDE.
There is a difference between having evidence something works
empirically (Li) and not having evidence something works empirically
(homeopathy).
> The creation of a double standard, which allows certain things in
> standard medicine but forbids them in alternative medicine,
> is part of this deception.
If there is no evidence, you have faith. Evidence of efficacy can be
empirical or theory-based.
If there is a difference between homeopathy and religion, I don't know
what it is.
sharon
Ocean of Nuance
I think the fact that there has been $1 million waiting for several
years for anyone who proves homeopathy works is very good evidence
against it.
sharon
Jill
> Jill wrote:
>> Ocean of Nuance wrote:
>>>
>>> Look, there is evidence-based science and there is faith.
>>
>> And there is a huge amount of experience which is evidence, and is
>> tested, but, frustratingly, not done with methodology that is
>> acceptable by some sectors of the medical / veterinary world.
>
> Experience is know to be faulty and unreliable.
So have past controlled studies. ;)
Experience has equally been shown to be reliable and effective.
I look forward to the results of trials that are being worked out, just like
the conclusive trial supporting the efficacy of Alexander Technique in the
long term relief of back pain.
I do not care what you believe, I do think its a shame that your mind is SO
closed to not even trying to understand different ideas.
You would rather have a gadget to force something in your body than get some
empathy with what might be happening with its subtleties, and learn new
things to help prevent the pain and problems.
Its your loss.
And religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of this conversation,
except maybe in your mind where it seems to be high on the agenda at all
times, despite all your protestations.
Jill
The more you understand about homeopathy the easier it is to realise why
thats not as simple a question as it seems.
As I say, I wish it were easier to bring the various sectors together to
understand each other better.
When it happens its very powerful.
I have been fortunate enough to have been surrounded by medics of all kinds
all my life, and also some exceptional complementary therapists including
homeopaths.
I have seen the efficacy of the treatments first hand, on a variety of
species.
I understand the problems but also understand why there are no simple
solutions, particularly with homeopathy.
I would not attempt to try and describe it, but I do understand it.
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
> And religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of this conversation,
> except maybe in your mind where it seems to be high on the agenda at all
> times, despite all your protestations.
The problem is dogma, be it religion, homeopathy, or anything that isn't
evidence-based.
Dogma is the license people give to one another to stop thinking. It's
intellectual laziness. intelligent Design creationism is a good
example... because the proponents of it can't imagine explaining the
evolution of an enzyme cascade for example or a bacterial flagella,
therefore it must be designed.
These same folks, living long ago, could not imagine the real cause of
thunder, therefore it must be Zeus' hammer.
sharon
Jill
> If there is a difference between homeopathy and religion, I don't know
> what it is.
>
You do not understand religion so you cannot compare it to anything else.
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
> The more you understand about homeopathy the easier it is to realise why
> thats not as simple a question as it seems.
> As I say, I wish it were easier to bring the various sectors together to
> understand each other better.
> When it happens its very powerful.
> I have been fortunate enough to have been surrounded by medics of all
> kinds all my life, and also some exceptional complementary therapists
> including homeopaths.
> I have seen the efficacy of the treatments first hand, on a variety of
> species.
> I understand the problems but also understand why there are no simple
> solutions, particularly with homeopathy.
> I would not attempt to try and describe it, but I do understand it.
You write this paragraph about homeopathy but it could equally and
IDENTICALLY have been written about religious belief.
That is my point.
s
Ocean of Nuance
> Ocean of Nuance wrote:
>> If there is a difference between homeopathy and religion, I don't know
>> what it is.
>>
>
> You do not understand religion so you cannot compare it to anything else.
Heh.
Why don't you explain religion to me.
s
Jill
> It's intellectual laziness.
That shows how little you understand about homeopathy works and how each is
developed, and why religion has no place in this conversation.
Maybe if you actually went out and learned about the subject from someone
who knows what they are talking about instead of usenet or random internet
sites you might comprehend a little.
Ocean of Nuance
> Ocean of Nuance wrote:
>> It's intellectual laziness.
>
> That shows how little you understand about homeopathy works and how each
> is developed, and why religion has no place in this conversation.
> Maybe if you actually went out and learned about the subject from
> someone who knows what they are talking about instead of usenet or
> random internet sites you might comprehend a little.
>
On what basis do you reject Christianity, Islam, and Judaism?
On what basis to you accept homeopathy?
s