Homeopathy is stronger than antidepresants/antipsychotics

Post Reply New Topic

It's possible that you are right, but I would really rather have the direct input of the moderator on his or her rationale before carrying on with any assumptions I may have made about it in error.

And the P value of your study is..?

Anecdote.

Why do we dismiss anecdotes? It is simple actually:

a) How do we know the story has actually happened?
b) How do we know the story has happened the way it is being told?

A problem with "homeopathic" remedies is that some stuff that isn't really "homeopathic" but is instead only "natural" (aka Herbs, etc) are called and advertised as "homeopathic". So, in the OP's case, he may have actually taken some herbs rather than an extremely diluted thing (the real definition of something homeopathic).

The uncle could have also replaced the "homeopathic" medicine with real stuff.

c) What does it matter it happened?
Coincidences happen all the time, a single tale is not worth statistically.

---

In this case, 6X means 1 in a million. Which is hardly homeopathic it does not follow the law of infinitesimals. So this was actually a herbal remedy , not homeopathic. Stramonium is a toxic, poisonous plant, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stramonium ) so there is your answer. I wouldn't be surprised if that thing in a 1:1000000 dilution actually has an effect. I wouldn't be surprised if it was slowly killing you either.

Ah, yes.

Statistics.

Two useful reads:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistic ... 0393310728

http://www.amazon.com/Physicians-Desk-R ... pd_sim_b_3

I have not myself read the first - never felt I needed to, having seen how well statistics can work in academia [both Linguistics and Education].

No empirical evidence supports the efficacy of homeopathy.

Linguistics are to the scientific method what purple elephants are to tigers.

Philogos, you should have read the first book, lying through the use of phony statistics is exactly what every homeopathy-supporting faux-study has done since the beginning of time.

At least if you define "empirical evidence" so as to make that work.

As in double blind controlled experiments. Homeopathy is unsupported by credible evidence.

ruveyn

One more time:

Two useful reads:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistic ... 0393310728

http://www.amazon.com/Physicians-Desk-R ... pd_sim_b_3

I particularly recommend careful perusal of the PDR

[not the Podunk Democratic Republic]

"Homeopathy is bullsh*t."
"Nuh-uh."
"Where is empirical support for it?"
"Statistics are used to lie! The scientists be EVIL ones, yo!"




I love PPR.

it's a mentality i can never grasp.



people are basically relying on waters ability to "remember"
for the ones where a single molecule or two are ingested the active ingredient could be plutonium and you wouldnt feel any ill effects.
hogwash.

The internal inconsistency that really bothers me about this is how do they get the water to "forget" all the molecules it encountered prior to being used by the homeopath? If that degree of dilution doesn't alter the "memory", why would distillation or filtration or any other form of purification?

I investigated this question with Google but the only homeopathic website I found that actually addresses it didn't make any sense.
This one:

http://www.revitalizedbiogenic.com/howisitmade/14.htm


These people apparently sell some sort of machine to homeopaths that "erases the memory" of water so that it will not be affected by all the molecules it came in contact with prior. None of their explanation makes any sense at all. I think they are intentionally obfuscating what happens inside their machine (distillation????) to bamboozle gullible homeopaths.

Maybe some some science-literate posters can untangle the jargon. I am somewhat science literate but what I got from this website was "abracadabra".

Well, quite.
The whole notion is ridiculous.

I had a quick dig for information on Jacques Benveniste who is credited in that article as "One of the first scientists to focus his attention on proving the reality of memory in water." and as being awarded two Nobel Prizes in Chemistry.
This Wiki page is quite interesting and shows his ideas have been thoroughly debunked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste
I was puzzled that there was no prominent mention of his Nobel Prizes, then found this at the bottom of the page:
The article you linked "forgets" to mention that the Nobel Prizes were actually Ig Nobel Prizes:They seem to have copy/pasted this information from Wikipedia or the Ig Nobel site.
The awards are confirmed on the Ig Nobel website at http://improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig1991 and http://improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig1998

Of course this has nothing whatever to do with the real Nobel Foundation and the more verifiable things that organisation is normally associated with.
Since the "Structured Water" article is already laughable, adding blatant lies doesn't exactly help.

Yes indeed, and I expect that aspect of it works very well indeed.

OK, so I went there. Now, I know what is going to happen. I should go to James Randi and collect my million dollars, since I will magically pick all the ones that are NOT representative of homeopaths and are not actually cures at all. But I will still try.

This article is about how a diluted piece of the Berlin Wall cured someone's anxiety and depression.

Homeopathic radium?

How can you look at the patient and a periodic table and go, "Your condition reminds me of radium." It does not say what isotope he used.

You do not need a lead shield, you just need homeopathy. L-Carnitine is in Monster and other Energy Drinks, but apparently in homeopathic form can rid radiation from the body. Vitamin C, Garlic...they apparently have to be in special conditions for stopping radiation poisoning. I am just going to show one of these PubMed papers that claims the efficacy of apple pectin against radiation. That was not a homeopathic treatment, and is completely different from it altogether.

So what do you do when someone challenges you on the practice of homeopathy or has unkind words for you? Sling insults. No need to show evidence, no need to stay calm, it is better to in this case to ad hominem your debater. Claim they do not care and call them idiots. Splendid. They even deleted all the things they did not like to alter the poll. These people who claim censorship often do not want people to talk about it at all or only want positive things said about them. Just ask Age of Autism, Generation Rescue, and the Autism One conference.

Janissy -

that is indeed a junk site.

For a number of historical reasons, homeopathic research, except for the testing of new substances, has been seriously neglected. There are thousands of important questons - I could list a hundred off the top of my head if I could stand the typing and thought anyone would read - that cry out for answers that will not happen unless I pick up several million and fund the research.

The theories of how / why it operates are frankly worthless. Not unexpected given the lack of serious work - it is at about the same level as the days of phlogiston.

The main factor is the individualized versus mass differential between Classical Homeopathy and Standard Practice. That [plus the materia medica, of course] resulted in the marginalization which is what permits the higher ration of fakes and charlatans [vicious circle, that].

---------

I did not get this:

"So what do you do when someone challenges you on the practice of homeopathy or has unkind words for you? Sling insults. " I followed the link, read the piece - The closest I can see to "slinginjg insults" is this:

Taking these rubrics, I repertorized the case from Synthesis repertory and the following list of medicines came at the top -

Stramonium, Lycopodium, Belladona, Hyoscyamus, Nux vomica, Tuberculinum, Plumbum, Sulphur, Veratum alb, Lachesis, Moschus, Bufo, Sepia, Tarentula, and Anacardium.

Is it mererly a coincidence that most of the remedies that came up in this analysis are derived from sources which are poisonous in nature? Poisons for people who spew poison!

Is that what you mean?

It is not serious - the guy is at least half joking, I would say. Not that funny.

But you know, when Glowworm is piling on the epithets at me, there is no point coming up with presentation of evidence.