7 Warning Signs of Bogus Science
true.bl...@gmail.com
The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to
expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists.
Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to
them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new
result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that
the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other
scientists.
Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by
appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company
marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper
ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to
suppress his or her work.
The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to
suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power
in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part
of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims
that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile
that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of
such a car is baloney.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
detection.
Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the
Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some
level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the
signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the
effect is probably not real and the work is not science.
Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim
to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or
precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of
statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which
suggests that it isn't really there.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to
distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong
emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an
age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not
vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by
means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the
saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for
centuries.
There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years
ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the
body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous
remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed
"alternative medicine" is part of that myth.
Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match
the output of modern scientific laboratories.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic
laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple
of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples
in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always
syntheses of the work of many scientists.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an
observation.
A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result,
must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change
existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an
observation, it is almost certainly wrong.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/signs.html
Peter Brown
on usenet prove that most of the right wing knobs out there haven't
opened a science text book since the dropped out of high school.
Carole
<true.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:39bddebc-8bc5-49f5...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
>
> The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to
> expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists.
> Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to
> them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new
> result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that
> the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other
> scientists.
Peer review is often more about consensus than science
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/4357
One way in which critics are silenced is through the accusation that they
are ignoring 'peer-reviewed science'. Yet oftentimes, peer review is a
nonsense. As anyone who has ever put his nose inside a university will know,
peer review is usually a mode of excluding the unexpected, the unpredictable
and the unrespectable, and forming a mutually back-scratching circle. The
history of peer review and how it developed is not a pretty sight. Through
the process of peer review, of certain papers being nodded through by
experts and other papers being given a red cross, the controllers of the
major scientific journals can include what they like and exclude what they
don't like. Peer review is frequently a way of controlling debate, even
curtailing it. Many people who fall back on peer-reviewed science seem
afraid to have out the intellectual argument.
> Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by
> appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company
> marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper
> ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.
>
> 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to
> suppress his or her work.
You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you
>
> The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to
> suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power
> in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part
> of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims
> that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile
> that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of
> such a car is baloney.
>
> 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
> detection.
Science doesn't accept homeopathy but it does work.
Oh, quackwatch. That pack of quacks. they wouldn't know anything. You'd be
better off staying away from that website.
they should put themselves at the top of their "quack list".
carole
www.conspiracee.com
sandy...@gmail.com
Carole wrote:
> <true.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39bddebc-8bc5-49f5...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
> > detection.
> Science doesn't accept homeopathy but it does work.
Science doesn't accept or reject anything.
If something has no observable effect, and if the explanation of how
it should work relies on some basic tenet of science being incorrect,
then that thing is obviously a load of codswallop.
Like Homeopathy, which flouts the basic reality of chemistry and for
which no observable effect can be detected.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
The placebo effect is real and powerful.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
Relevant.Search.Result
> http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/signs.html
Einstein exposed.
Benway (original non-Zionist)
*********************************************
But Carole reckons we are stupid if we don't
believe that periodically some backyard inventor
re-discovers that internal-combustion engines can
run on water, and just as the inventor is ready to
release the commercial product, the oil companies
murder him and the secret is lost yet again.
It must be true, because if you cannot find any
evidence, that proves that the evidence was hidden.
So when there is no evidence, that is absolute proof.
If you can find plenty of evidence for something,
that proves it is not true, because obviously the
evidence was planted...
Have I gotten with the paranoid program yet?
****************************************
george
> Science doesn't accept homeopathy but it does work.
No.
it is plain water and gullibility
sandy...@gmail.com
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> sandy...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Carole wrote:
> >
> >> <true.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:39bddebc-8bc5-49f5...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>> 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
> >>> detection.
> >> Science doesn't accept homeopathy but it does work.
> > Science doesn't accept or reject anything.
> > If something has no observable effect, and if the explanation of how
> > it should work relies on some basic tenet of science being incorrect,
> > then that thing is obviously a load of codswallop.
> > Like Homeopathy, which flouts the basic reality of chemistry and for
> > which no observable effect can be detected.
> The placebo effect is real and powerful.
Absolutely, and that's an accepted fact - a good proportion of
Doctors' prescriptions are for sugar pills, relying on the placebo
effect to reduce symptoms of stress for example.
However, charlatans who make money from gullible people by telling
them lies about science and about their ineffective product are a
disgrace and should be locked up.
That includes Homeopaths, Chiropractic, vitamin therapy, Magnetic
healing and all the other baloney.
Carole
"Benway (original non-Zionist)" <capt...@mailpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:ca1a3cf7-5cba-47d8...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
There's not much I can say to people who are determined to believe
homeopathy doesn't work.
They drag up the obvious objections which are obvious to anybody.
And yet, they are probably all "born again" christians, people who take
christianity on faith and that they have an imaginery "jesus in their
hearts".
It is a fact that homeopathy works and there are scientific studies which
have shown it to work.
Homeopathy proven
"Whenever critics may say that homeopathy does not have any good research.
we can confidently inform them that they are not familiar with the
scientific literature."
http://www.earthsremedy.com/scientificevidence.htm
http://www.earthsremedy.com/clinicalevidence.htm
http://www.earthsremedy.com/clinicalstudies.htm
http://www.earthsremedy.com/researchinhomeopathy.htm
carole
www.cellsalts.net
Carole
Yes, all these 7 points apply in some cases, but not in all cases.
There are exceptions to all of them, they are generalisations. I can think
of exceptions to all of them.
carole
www.conspiracee.com
Lou Ravi
> It is a fact that homeopathy works and there are scientific studies
> which have shown it to work.
>
> Homeopathy proven
> "Whenever critics may say that homeopathy does not have any good
> research. we can confidently inform them that they are not familiar
> with the scientific literature."
> http://www.earthsremedy.com/scientificevidence.htm
> http://www.earthsremedy.com/clinicalevidence.htm
> http://www.earthsremedy.com/clinicalstudies.htm
> http://www.earthsremedy.com/researchinhomeopathy.htm
Do you have links to any sites that aren't pushing homeopathy
themselves? I'm afraid I always treat sites with a vested interest with
the greatest circumspection.
Harry Heidelberg
us.politics,uk.politics.misc,can.politics,nz.politics, Carole posted:
> <true.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39bddebc-8bc5-49f5...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
<snippage
>
>> 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to
>> suppress his or her work.
>
> You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you
>
Not necessarily Carole, there is no mutual exclusivity there.
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
Regards Harry
"It is in the shelter of each other that people live."
Irish Proverb
Citizen Jimserac
>
> > > Carole wrote:
>
> > >> <true.blue.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:39bddebc-8bc5-49f5...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >>> 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
> > >>> detection.
> > > Science doesn't accept or reject anything.
> > > If something has no observable effect, and if the explanation of how
> > > it should work relies on some basic tenet of science being incorrect,
> > > then that thing is obviously a load of codswallop.
> > > which no observable effect can be detected.
> > The placebo effect is real and powerful.
>
> Absolutely, and that's an accepted fact - a good proportion of
> Doctors' prescriptions are for sugar pills, relying on the placebo
> effect to reduce symptoms of stress for example.
>
> However, charlatans who make money from gullible people by telling
> them lies about science and about their ineffective product are a
> disgrace and should be locked up.
> That includes Homeopaths, Chiropractic, vitamin therapy, Magnetic
> healing and all the other baloney.
EXCUSE ME???
You think ALL Homeopaths and Chriopractors are engaged in deception?
I have no doubt that there are indeed charlatans out there but do you
impugn the reputation of Homeopaths, many of whom are also MD's, RN's,
Acupuncture physicians, Chiropractors, ND's who spend years perfecting
their healing methods.... ALL OF THEM?
NO. This kind of sweeping generalization is simply illogical
nonsense.
Are you aware that the now, in my opinion, discredited "Quackwatch"
organization owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal judgements
against it for lawsuits it instigated against a Chiropractor .
Are you aware that the so called $1,000,000 challenge dude, the
"Amazing" Randi apparently entered into negotiations lasting for
MONTHS with a Greek homeopath, George Vitoulkas but ... became ill for
some months at a crucial point in the negotiations to set up the test
while Vitoulkas tried to secure the arrangements for the test at a
local hospital?
Are you aware that a Pharmaceutical researcher named M. Ennis has
published, in the journal Inflammation Research, research which
clearly shows the stimulation of biological activity by high dilution
solution in which all molecules of the stimulant have been diluted
away (Inflammation Research, vol 53, p181) - and that those
experiments have been repeated with improved controls and confirmed
positive results in 2007 and 2008 by Sainte-Laudy and also published?
Are you aware that a famous 2001 British BBC documentary on Homeopathy
which everyone believes repeated Ennis' experiment, actually did not -
when contacted by Ennis (after some weeks or months of attempting to
contact the producers) they finally admitted that they had never
intended to exactly repeat her experiment and that their researcher
utilized a chemical which killed the cells under test thus ruining the
experiment from the outset. The wikipedia article still wrongly
repeats this falsehood.
Are you aware that a recent Journal of Clinical Epidemiology article
did a reconstruction of a famous meta analysis that appeared in the
Lancet "End of Homeopathy" issue in 2005 and found its conclusion,
that Homeopathy was no better than placebo, to be completely
worthless. It is worth noting that this widely ballyhooed 110
studies on which this misbegotten pseudo scientific statistical
bullshit was based on was actually 8 (EIGHT!!) studies after various
exclusionary manipulations were used to "refine" the data.
Hey, there are crap studies out there in Homeopathy (and some good
ones) I'm sure but this NONSENSE that people who spend years to
acquire their healing knowledge are enganged in some sort of
purposeful deception - that is just plain innuendo.
Likewise, this NONSENSE that people are going to shut off their
thinking process the moment they encounter a high dilution Homeopathic
solution because it violates their High School chemistry knowledge has
just about gone far enough - just you go do some research and find out
about REAL scientists doing real scientific research in Homeopathy and
about real research showing positive benefits, and stop insulting the
people will someday REALLY cure cancer as opposed to the people who
have spent 30 billion dollars for 30 years and the best they have come
up with is chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.
Thanks for hearing me out.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:12:41 GMT in aus.politics and
> us.politics,uk.politics.misc,can.politics,nz.politics, Carole posted:
>
> >news:39bddebc-8bc5-49f5...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snippage
>
> >> 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to
> >> suppress his or her work.
>
> > You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you
>
> Not necessarily Carole, there is no mutual exclusivity there.
> Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
>
> Regards Harry
>
> "It is in the shelter of each other that people live."
> Irish Proverb
Excuse me, but when a journal of such former good reputation as the
"Lancet" finds it necessary to put out an "end of Homeopathy" (sic)
issue in 2005 in order to contravene popular and favorable publicity
in favour of Homeopathy, such as the favorable comments by Prince
Charles before the WHO some months earlier - even to the point of
including shoddy articles of poor scientific quality needing
misrepresentation and suppression of data in order to support their
spurious conclusions, I believe we can conclude that there are some
special interests out there who are very much worried about the
increasing popularity and successes of Homeopathy and alternative
medicine in general.
That would include a letter circulated in Britain by anti-
Homeopathists which was published and sent to health organizations.
The letter had an official looking NHS logo on it which the anti-
Homeoapatphy group had no business using, in my opinion.
An NHS branch issued a prompt disavowal.
A series of innuendo filled articles attempting to ridicule Homeopathy
and discredit without scientific analysis and by apparent
misrepresntation and suppression of facts has appeared in the Guardian
authored by one Dr. Goldarcre. This is the same chap who was awarded
a prize for "scientific journalism" for his defence of MMR vaccines.
The 2000 pound award was traced to, if I rerember correctly,
SmithGlaxoKline one of whose subsidiaries manufactures (suprise!!!)
MMR vaccines.
For details on Goldacre and for an alternative and favorable view of
Homeopathy
with full responses from those for and against, see the excellent blog
by laughingmyscoksoff, at THIS link:
http://laughingmysocksoff.wordpress.com/
I daresay that commercial interests and some professional
organizations stand to lose greatly if Homeopathy vindicated by
current ongoing scientific research. That is EASILY SUFFICIENT
GROUNDS FOR CAMPAIGNS AND ENCOURAGEMENT of campaigns against it.
Citizen Jimserac
Homeopathy? There absolutely nothing in it but the "SIDE EFFECT" IS
THE CURE!!
Roy
>
> - Show quoted text -
-
Homeopathy is TOTAL bullshit pseudoscience...end of story.
-
Citizen Jimserac
Is that all you've got? Just repeating that YOU think it's bullshit?
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
The only thing Homeopathy flouts is the INADEQUACY of your high school
chemistry knowledge and the complete lack of knowledge of current
research.
For a real researcher demonstrating that high dilution solutions with
NO molecules of the original stimulant left can stimulate biological
effects, see M. Ennis, Inflammation Research, vol 53. 181. The
experiments were repeated more recently and confirmed by Sainte-
Laude. A BBC Horizon documentary which CLAIMED to repeat her
experiment actually did not - she had to expend some effort contacting
the producers to find out what exactly it was that their researcher
did do - what he did do was go off on a tangent, utilize a chemical
which KILLED the cells under test and do an experiment which they
admit was never intended to be a repetition of hers. Oh and he
apparently forgot to mention that to the producers who were in touch
with the royal society about their "repetition" until much later.
Whoops.
None of this proves Homeopathy but it does prove that genuine science
research on it proceeds and that misrepresentation of that research,
particularly by the media, does seem to happen...
The wikipedia article about Ennis still wrongly states that the BBC
documentary repeated her experiment with negative results.
How about you STOP using your outrage at violations of YOUR common
"sense" and YOUR chemistry "knowledge", if any, and let real
scientists and researchers do their job and find the answers, publish
and seek valid repetitions and confirmation of their work from their
peers. THAT's what science is all about.
Homeopathy could indeed be ALL WRONG - but YOU are not the one to
inform us of that - nor are various entrenched special interests to be
allowed to use anti-science, pseudo-science innuendo to attack it
before the damn research is done..
Citizen Jimserac
Roy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why would I need anything else?...I told you "end of story".
-
Citizen Jimserac
> On Jan 24, 10:04 am, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 11:32 am, Roy <wila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Why would I need anything else?...I told you "end of story".
> -
End of my responses to you too!
Citizen Jimserac
Peter Bowditch
You're in trouble now, Roy. Citizen Jim is a proselytising true
believer.
And Jim, before you accuse me of stalking you, I was here in
aus.politics long before you.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
mother
For what reasons do you consider "Quackwatch" to be discredited?
Care to give the name of this "a Chiropractor" you mention? (I suspect
I know about the case you are referring to, but nothing about them
owing "hundreds of thousands of dollars").
> Are you aware that the so called $1,000,000 challenge dude, the
> "Amazing" Randi apparently entered into negotiations lasting for
> MONTHS with a Greek homeopath, George Vitoulkas but ... became ill for
> some months at a crucial point in the negotiations to set up the test
> while Vitoulkas tried to secure the arrangements for the test at a
> local hospital?
In one of your post's you've said something critical about the use of
"innuendo" and yet you post this? I don't know where you've got this
story from but it is incorrect.
The stalling point for carrying out Vitoulkas' homeopathy test was in
finding a suitable venue. The Hungarian Homeopathic Medical Association
(HHMA) originally agreed to host the trials but then pulled out at the
last minute for spurious reasons.
Vitoulkas has remained remarkably silent since then.
> Thanks for hearing me out.
> Citizen Jimserac
<hugs>
humbert....@gmail.com
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
> On Jan 21, 5:27 pm, sandy.bl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > However, charlatans who make money from gullible people by telling
> > them lies about science and about their ineffective product are a
> > disgrace and should be locked up.
> > That includes Homeopaths, Chiropractic, vitamin therapy, Magnetic
> > healing and all the other baloney.
> EXCUSE ME???
> You think ALL Homeopaths and Chriopractors are engaged in deception?
Yes, they all are. Whether its ignorance or dishonesty is not relevant
- the fact is they are pushing 18th-century gobbledegook as "medical
science" which is patently untrue.
The ideas behind Homeopathy & chiropracy are scientifically illiterate
and neither quackery has any proven effectiveness.
Roy
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thats okay, my sister was always proselytising too but she croaked and
is her heaven now. Her efforts to "save" me failed as well.
-
Roedy Green
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an
>observation.
This reminds me of the late Al Parker who was always bringing me
designs for perpetual motion machines. I would explain the catch why
they would not work. He would refuse to believe me. I would say,
"build one then" and you will see. He never did.
He also had some "power rocks" he claimed if thrown into the ocean
would clean up all the pollution. I expressed skepticism. I said,
"Well toss them in and we'll see". He always had an excuse to
procrastinate putting them to the test.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
We are almost certainly going to miss our [global warming] deadline.
We cannot get the 10 lost years back, and by the time a new global agreement to
replace the Kyoto accord is negotiated and put into effect, there will probably
not be enough time left to stop the warming short of the point where we must not
go. ~ Gwynne Dyer
Citizen Jimserac
> Roy <wila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No problem old dude, good to see you!
Any chap who provides instructions on getting rid
of the Chung infestation has some good in him!!
Citizen Jimserac
Roy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Go buy a bottle of placebo and drink it...I am sure it will cure you
of all your ills. Idiot.
-
Roy
>
> > > Carole wrote:
>
> > >> <true.blue.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You forgot the "foot manipulators, "ear candler's", "head bump
readers", et al.
-
Citizen Jimserac
> On 2009-01-24 15:41:44 +0000, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> said:
> In one of your post's you've said something critical about the use of
> "innuendo" and yet you post this? I don't know where you've got this
> story from but it is incorrect.
>
> The stalling point for carrying out Vitoulkas' homeopathy test was in
> finding a suitable venue. The Hungarian Homeopathic Medical Association
> (HHMA) originally agreed to host the trials but then pulled out at the
> last minute for spurious reasons.
>
> Vitoulkas has remained remarkably silent since then.
Silent??? You did not go to Vitoulkas' own web site and read THIS???
http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/1973/lang,en/
Some quotes from
http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/1973/lang,en/
go to that site for the FULL report from VITOULKAS.
- On 2nd and 3rd September of 2008, there was a final meeting in the
International Academy of Classical homeopathy in Alonissos to discuss
last details of the experiment. In the meeting were present the
representative of Randi, Mr. Hrasko Gabor, Ms Althea Katz
(representative of Mr. Alec Gindis), Dr. Menachem Oberbaum, principal
investigator of the experiment and Prof. George Vithoulkas. They
discussed for two days all the details about the experiment and the
discussion was taped officially and also some of it videoed by a
professional camera man from Israel.
- A FEW DAYS LATER (during September 2008) WE RECEIVED INFORMATION
FROM USA THAT IN RANDI’S WEBSITE WAS APPEARING (since March 2008) A
TEXT (under a title ANOTHER WITHDRAWAL) SAYING IN EFFECT THAT THE
GREEK HOMEOPATHS HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM THE EXPERIMENT!!
"In the document was stated that a major test of homeopathy in Greece
has met the expected fate, being abandoned by the homeopathy
community!!!!
This information infuriated the group of homeopaths led by Prof.
George Vithoulkas and a lot of damage was caused to him as was accused
for been associated with such unreliable people.
"But the most outrageous event happened on 17.10.2008, when we
actually received an "ultimatum" from Mr. Randi by which he was
changing all the previous agreements refusing to go ahead with the
experiment as planned."
Go towards the bottom of the page and read the blue and red text (the
red is Vioulkas' comments on the
events that transpired.
It appears that Randi was posting that the Homeopaths had withdrawn
from the challenge while the negotitions with Vitoulkas were still in
progress!!! In another words, it appears that Randi was using the
mere setting up of the test
as more publicity to promote himself in my opinion.
I repeat, someone who has complete control over all aspects of the
negotiations can dicker forever - there is always some new unccounted
for little thingy but once that is accomodated it effects some other
previously agreed upon thingies and you can just keep that up forever
without ever having to risk the million by actually getting to the
test.
In short the whole challenge was, in my opinion, nothing more than a
publicity stunt. And yet we have perfectly
intelligent people running around shouting "ah! but has it met the
Randi $1,000,000 Challenge?"
If you think Homeopathy users are gullible then you haven't met a true
blue piss in the ocean Homeopathy skeptic yet.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
>
> > Are you aware that the now, in my opinion, discredited "Quackwatch"
> > organization owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal judgements
> > against it for lawsuits it instigated against a Chiropractor .
>
> For what reasons do you consider "Quackwatch" to be discredited?
>
> Care to give the name of this "a Chiropractor" you mention? (I suspect
> I know about the case you are referring to, but nothing about them
> owing "hundreds of thousands of dollars").
The following is from:
http://weeksmd.com/?p=48
See the above link for the full story. That is one of several
places you could easily have found the information yourself....
if you wanted to.
I'm not sure on the amount of damages - go ahead and correct me on
that one -
the several hundred thousand I mentioned was for a different case that
quackwatch
lost, mentioned in the article.
Quote from
http://weeksmd.com/?p=48
follows:
"Koren’s office re their lawsuit with Barrett.Barrett Loses Appeal,
Leaves TownSelf proclaimed Quackbuster, Stephen Barrett, MD, recently
handed crushing defeats by chiropractor Tedd Koren and Ilena
Rosenthal, has announced he is leaving his home town and operating
base in Allentown, Pennsylvania."
"On June 11th, 2007, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a
lower court dismissal of Barrett’s defamation suite against Dr. Koren.
Barrett’s case was so lacking in merit the judge blocked it from going
to the jury. Barrett simply had no case against Dr. Koren. This
followed another stunning defeat last month in California. There an
appeals court ordered Barrett and crony Terry Polevoy, MD to post
bonds of more than $400,000.00 after they lost a defamation case
against Illena Rosenthal virtually identical to the Koren case."
"Perhaps the fact that lawyers and judges in Allentown are catching on
to his intimidation schemes explains why Barrett is moving to Chapel
Hill, North Carolina. Barrett can run but he can’t hide. Chapel Hill
collection attorneys are already being asked to locate his assets to
pay his unmet legal obligations. Assets of other Quackwatch, Inc.,
principals might also be sought."
"Who Is Steven Barrett, What Are Quackbusters?"
"Steven Barrett is an unlicensed Pennsylvania psychiatrist, who,
though he failed his psychiatric boards and has been criticized for
his lack of expertise by several courts, still claims to often advise
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), the FBI, State Attorneys General, HMOs, Consumer Reports,
medical journals and state medical, chiropractic and dental boards."
quoted from:
Go to the link for the full article.
CJ
Peter Bowditch
Have you got the story from anyone else except known liars Koren and
Bolen?
Have you ever read any of the lying pamphlets that Koren produces for
sale to chiropractors?
<snip remaining garbage>
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
mother
> On Jan 24, 9:12 pm, mother <mot...@tbedtime.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Are you aware that the now, in my opinion, discredited "Quackwatch"
>>> organization owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal judgements
>>> against it for lawsuits it instigated against a Chiropractor .
>>
>> For what reasons do you consider "Quackwatch" to be discredited?
>>
>> Care to give the name of this "a Chiropractor" you mention? (I suspect
>> I know about the case you are referring to, but nothing about them
>> owing "hundreds of thousands of dollars").
>
> The following is from:
> http://weeksmd.com/?p=48
>
> See the above link for the full story. That is one of several
> places you could easily have found the information yourself....
> if you wanted to.
How am I supposed to find the information when what you posted about "a
Chiropractor" was completely untrue?
> I'm not sure on the amount of damages - go ahead and correct me on
> that one -
> the several hundred thousand I mentioned was for a different case that
> quackwatch
> lost, mentioned in the article.
So "a different case" then ;-p
> Quote from
> http://weeksmd.com/?p=48
> follows:
You really think that is a fair and unbiased report? Really?
A rather more factual account is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal
Which rather indicates that a libel against (Barrett) did occur but
that Rosenthal couldn't be found responsible because she was reposting
the words of someone else.
Also found the following link which seems to indicate that the award
for "hundreds of thousands of dollars" (notably in costs - not damages)
has been dismissed.
http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Hulda_Clark/Rosenthal/index.html
Perhaps you could of found that information yourself.... if you wanted to :-p
<hugs>
mother
> On Jan 24, 9:12 pm, mother <mot...@tbedtime.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-01-24 15:41:44 +0000, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> In one of your post's you've said something critical about the use of
>> "innuendo" and yet you post this? I don't know where you've got this
>> story from but it is incorrect.
>>
>> The stalling point for carrying out Vitoulkas' homeopathy test was in
>> finding a suitable venue. The Hungarian Homeopathic Medical Association
>> (HHMA) originally agreed to host the trials but then pulled out at the
>> last minute for spurious reasons.
>>
>> Vitoulkas has remained remarkably silent since then.
>
> Silent??? You did not go to Vitoulkas' own web site and read THIS???
> http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/1973/lang,en/
Yup, ok I was wrong to say that. However I think the situatition isn't
is clear cut as Vithoulkas' tries to make out. His description of
events seems to be rather too full of bluster and fawned indignation.
But that's just my opinion.
<hugs>
Trevor Wilson
"Carole" <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote in message
news:qbVdl.13339$cu....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> I can think
**Nope. Not once, not ever.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
"Carole" <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote in message
news:uPUdl.13331$cu....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
> There's not much I can say to people who are determined to believe
> homeopathy doesn't work.
> They drag up the obvious objections which are obvious to anybody.
> And yet, they are probably all "born again" christians, people who take
> christianity on faith and that they have an imaginery "jesus in their
> hearts".
**Bollocks. I am an atheist. I have been since I was 15 years old. I tried
homeopathy (with a completely open mind). I did so, because I had recently
been successfully treated by a herbalist for some complaints I had. I
figured that I'd give homeopathy a go, since the woman was pretty good with
here herbs. Nothing, nada, zip. The homeopathy was a complete waste of time.
Excuses were offered, but a little investigation on my part (which I should
have done, BEFORE shelling out my hard earned) would have explained why
herbs work and homeopathy does not. It is completely bogus.
>
>
> It is a fact that homeopathy works and there are scientific studies which
> have shown it to work.
**No, there are not. Not one INDEPENDENT study proves that homeopathy is any
better than a pacebo. Feel free to cite your INDEPENDENT studies though.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
A. J. Moss
> Homeopathy is TOTAL bullshit pseudoscience...end of story.
The ultra-molecular dilution counter-argument is that an
initial sample of, say 10^20 molecules, diluted x10 in 30
separate steps, would be expected to be reduced to 10^(-10)
molecules; and since the number of molecules must be an
integer, this number must be zero.)
This pre-supposes that the dilution steps continue to reduce
the concentration ten-fold, even when the concentration is
immeasurably low.
Compare this with attempts by physicists to cool a sample
as closely as possible to absolute zero:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/NehemieCange.shtml
The Third Law of Thermodynamics states that you can never
get that last bit of heat energy out of the system -- not
even if you apply the cooling cycle so many times that
statistically there should be less than one quantum of
heat energy in there.
Roy
Who gives a red rat's ass about your pseudo-science? I certainly
don't.
-
Peter Bowditch
You have to give him credit. I hadn't heard that particular abuse of
the word "quantum" to defend homeoquackery before. Very imaginative.
A. J. Moss
>> Who gives a red rat's ass about your pseudo-science?
>> I certainly don't.
Then you're in the wrong Usenet discussion. Indeed, for
someone who doesn't have the slightest interest in this
subject, you're making an awful lot of noise about it.
Peter Bowditch wrote:
> You have to give him credit. I hadn't heard that
> particular abuse of the word "quantum" to defend
> homeoquackery before. Very imaginative.
The notion that sub-microdoses of a medicine might have
a therapeutic effect flies in the face of good sense, but
you have to argue this case from a basis of pharmacology.
Theoretical pharmacology (e.g. the Folding@home project)
is still a very young science.
The simpler argument, from the first principles of atomic
theory, that there is precisely nothing left in the final
diluted sample, relies on the untested assumption that the
dilution method works perfectly at all concentrations.
For example, suppose that the active ingredient tends to
stick to the walls of the container. When there is very
little of the active ingredient left, it would be harder
to dislodge all the stuff off the container walls, so the
assumption that the dilution steps would continue to
decrease the concentration ten-fold is unreliable.
In short, the ten-second implausibility argument against
homeopathy is itself bad science.
The Wankipedia article states, "Hahnemann also advocated
various lifestyle improvements to his patients, including
exercise, diet, and cleanliness." At the time, medicine
was still extremely crude: simply advising the patient
to step away from the shit and the cholera would have a
beneficial effect on his health.
I wouldn't be surprised if this in itself was enough to
allow homeopathy to blossom, just like a cargo cult.
Citizen Jimserac
> In article
> <08b3fb06-3718-4d93-83c3-d284dd55b...@u13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How about you STOP using your outrage at violations of YOUR common
> > "sense" and YOUR chemistry "knowledge",
>
> scientology assholes, magnetic therapy fraudsters, color therapy
> quacks, 911 and Kennedy conspiracy theorists, and all the other
> hucksters, snake oil merchants, fraudsters, morons, putrid trolls,
> brain-dead necrotic buffoons and sundry off-topic fuckin' idjits get
> outa this New Zealand politics newsgroup. No one here gives a pinch of
> shit for your fucking brain-dead homeopathetic BULLSHIT!
How about you get some balls and stop having your posts deleted after
5 days?
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
Since you are among the few around here to actually admit when you
were wrong,
I'll be equally open and admit that I agree with you on the Vithoulkas
comment.
To know what the hell really happened we'd need actual transcripts of
the negotiations -
it's not looking too good for either side with what we have so far.
Citizen Jimserac
Roy
Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
> sandy.bl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Carole wrote:
>
> >> <true.blue.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:39bddebc-8bc5-49f5...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
> >>> detection.
>
> >> Science doesn't accept homeopathy but it does work.
>
> > Science doesn't accept or reject anything.
>
> > If something has no observable effect, and if the explanation of how
> > it should work relies on some basic tenet of science being incorrect,
> > then that thing is obviously a load of codswallop.
>
> > Like Homeopathy, which flouts the basic reality of chemistry and for
> > which no observable effect can be detected.
>
> The placebo effect is real and powerful.
>
And in a proper placebo controlled experiment, the placebo will have
no observable effect compared to the control, which of course is
also a placebo.
Fred the Red Shirt
> Roy wrote:
> > Homeopathy is TOTAL bullshit pseudoscience...end of story.
>
> The ultra-molecular dilution counter-argument is that an
> initial sample of, say 10^20 molecules, diluted x10 in 30
> separate steps, would be expected to be reduced to 10^(-10)
> molecules; and since the number of molecules must be an
> integer, this number must be zero.)
>
> This pre-supposes that the dilution steps continue to reduce
> the concentration ten-fold, even when the concentration is
> immeasurably low.
>
> Compare this with attempts by physicists to cool a sample
> as closely as possible to absolute zero:
Why?
--
FF