Here are some useful links too:
http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/news...alStudies.html
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/115
http://www.liebertonline.com/toc/acm/11/5?

__________________
Dr.S.K.Pattnaik,HMD,M.D(Alt.Med),Ph.D
Chairman,Indian Council for Holistic Health Care
http://holihealcouncil.forumup.in/
http://artofhealing.freeforums.org/
http://ichhc.tripod.com/

Trying to equate Hahnemann with Darwin yet again Neil? Do I really have to explain the difference between "The Origin of Species" and "The Organon of Medicine"?

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...medid=11943072
Interesting.

My knowledge of the pathology in question is far from adequate to seriously nitpick this protocol, but I can point out a few things:

-The publication is 2002. Has it been repeated?

- The groups are too small to provide statistical significance (and they don't claim to have that).

- It is a bit suspicious that they use the term "ultra diluted", when there is actually nothing in the remedy (which they do acknowledge).

- There does not seem to be any blinding of the keepers of the mice.

- Otherwise it appears to be a soundly constructed protocol.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

try. both represent compilations of detailed scientific observations. you'd do better to try to understand empirical method, and to demonstrate some respect for evidence produced by observation, instead of trying to distort the way people think of the subject, by refusing to acknowledge common dictionary and professional usage.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

[/quote]
They say that...
So how can it be homeopathic? It should, in real and believable doses, produce symptoms similar to those brought on by the illness (cancer of the liver). This directly contradicts that principle.

Also, what's the deal with using homeopathy to combat induced illness (such as in this case)? Is there any problem with this, according to homeopaths, or is it allowed? Do you have to apply a similar to the symptoms of the induced disease, or can you just dilute the agent used to induce the disease in the lab?

Without going into any evaluation of the quality of the observations and the conclusions drawn, the big difference is that The Origin of Species has been constantly verified, amended, and elaborated since it was written, by a huge body of independent research. Thus, it represents the founding idea of a dynamically updated and verified body of knowledge. Verified both by more empirical research, laboratory experiments, theorethical evaluation, statistical research, etc.

You'd do better by refraining from assuming that people don't understand entire concepts, whenever they disagree with you.

As for my use of "anecdotical", I admit to the element of provocation in it. In reality, what I have seen of homeopathic documentation spans the entire range from sound clinical reporting to wildly speculative anecdotes. And that diversity is one if its weaknesses.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

geesh. three years later. perhaps you'd be kind enough to also concede the element of provocation in the usage of 'case story,' and your restrictive usage of the term, 'evidence.'

without these admissions, the discussions in fact have given no indication, clear or otherwise, that you appreciated in the least, the range within which clinical reporting exists, from - in your own quite acceptable terms - "...sound clinical reporting to wildly speculative anecdotes." in short, you have not heretofore given any indication that you understood the process, so i think my assumption was justified. i'm very happy, trust me on this, to find you more in touch with reality than i expected. your present forumation is, in short, a perfectly appropriate framework for (actually) discussing the relative merits of clinical/observational methods.


as for diversity, i confess my own surprise at the apparent (potential) scope of incompetence and corruption in formal, peer reviewed quantitative research. my qualms about controlled research have always been directed more at problems i have seen with conceptualizing end points, essentially; the potential import of leavitt's paper (and the fact he cites research from jama, lancet, bmj, etc) frankly has taken me quite by surprise ... though i am probably more amused by this revelation than you might be .


neil

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Heheh, I can try. Actually, I feel I have been making my use of "anecdotical" clear during other iterations that we have been through, but nevermind.

If "case story" is provokative to you, it must be because you don't want to be reminded of dismal quality of a very large part of the publicly available material. I have been using it as a sort of neutral term, exactly to avoud the provokative "anecdotical" term, but without moving to the "clinical record" which, unfortunately, is only merited by a fraction of the material.

Now, "evidence": Evidence is a true rubber word. I suppose my background makes me generally use it in the meaning "strong evidence" or even "conclusive evidence". Semantically, of course, anything is evidence. The problem is, what is it evidence of? For example, an anecdote (one we could both agree merits that term) is quite solid evidence .... that somebody thinks he/she observed something. But not that anything can be concluded from that observation.

Homeopathic case stories, as a whole, are evidence that lots of people observed something they attributed to the efficacy of homeopathic remedies, but whether it is "valid evidence" that such efficacy exists, well, that is what we are discussing.

Yes. The question is, is that what we want to discuss (actually I think a lot of this circular movement is due to not making it clear exactly whar we are discussing).


Eeek. Strawman. Please don't pretend we haven't been through this. The efficiency of the filtering process for admission in peer-reviewed publications is not indicative of the overall quality of research. Such a process must always err on the side of permissiveness, in order to not accidentially suppress information that might be of value, even while possibly not living up to all formal requirements. After all, the purpose of scientific journals is to promote research, not stiffle it.

May I also remind you that if the admission requirements had been much more rigorous, none of the peer reviewed publications of positive trials of homeopathy that now exist would probably have made it.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Hans: Heheh, I can try. Actually, I feel I have been making my use of "anecdotical" clear during other iterations that we have been through, but nevermind.you have used 'anecdotal' and 'case story' exclusively in place of the appropriate usage of 'case study.' you have explicitly stated that you have seen "no" case studies in homeopathic literature, and even challenged whether freud's classic examples deserved the title. even a few posts up, in speaking of the 'anecdotal' character of the clinical record, you state that i have never provided any "clinical evidence," and that i have never provided any information from the "clinical database."

once again, in short, as recently as the last day or two, you refuse to recognize anything that is not statistically driven as representing "information" or "evidence" - if it is not from a "database" (your word) it is not "information" and it is not evidence. this is disinformation, hans. it is double think. it is re-writing the dictionary. it is provocative, and you certainly understand that ... or maybe i have given you too much credit, in thinking you had fessed up to 3 years of intentional provocation, while pretending to represent a scientific position. and all you can say, in recognition of your behavior, is "heheh, I can try"? let me know when you want to present a serious argument, and represent a serious pov.


Now, "evidence": Evidence is a true rubber word. I suppose my background makes me generally use it in the meaning "strong evidence" or even "conclusive evidence". Semantically, of course, anything is evidence. The problem is, what is it evidence of? For example, an anecdote (one we could both agree merits that term) is quite solid evidence .... that somebody thinks he/she observed something. But not that anything can be concluded from that observation. more distortion. because, as you know, the quality of evidence from the statistical record is in dispute, too. with up to 50% of peer reviewed papers showing substandard methodology and/or corruption (cheating), you are hardly in position to represent that record as superior even to true anecdotes.... in any case, we are discussing what conclusions can be drawn from evidence. and even here, you continue your self-referencing terminology: "Homeopathic case stories, as a whole, are evidence that lots of people observed something they attributed to the efficacy of homeopathic remedies, but whether it is "valid evidence".... hans, there is no such thing as a "case story," in homeopathy, psychotherapy, conventional medicine, or anywhere else: it is a neologism - a political neologism if not a frankly psychotic one - introduced as a pejorative, a diminutive, a dismissive reference to the professional clinical literature. you make conversation impossible, because you refuse to share the language that is shared by everyone else in the world.

at least, at times, you let slip that you "admit" (your word) to trolling, to carrying on with your ideosyncratic linguistic usages for 3 years for the purpose of being provocative. so your honesty is appreciated, even though it does not reflect very well on you.



Eeek. Strawman. Please don't pretend we haven't been through this. The efficiency of the filtering process for admission in peer-reviewed publications is not indicative of the overall quality of research. Such a process must always err on the side of permissiveness, in order to not accidentially suppress information that might be of value, even while possibly not living up to all formal requirements. After all, the purpose of scientific journals is to promote research, not stiffle it.

this is really unforgivably manipulative, or ignorant ... unless you have a different explanation. i hardly think the editors of lancet, jama, or the folks at bmj, would as happily endorse a record showing that up to 50% of the articles published within their covers reflected shoddy scholarship and/or intentional deceit. these are mistakes and lies, that have snuck through the entry process, hans, not misinterpretations and not ambiguities and not controversial interpretations. mistakes in calculations, selection of the wrong methodology, and lies, hans. that is not liberality in screening, it is inefficiency at best. what planet are you on, anyway?

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Oh, but I haven't. I do, however, acknowledge that they may exist.

Hey, what happend to Darwin, now? Tell me Neil: Why is it that you keep trying to divert the discussion to completely irrelevant subjects?


You haven't.

Strawman. The one constantly attempting to make a distinction between statistics and onter forms of research is you.

I have never claimed that. However, if it is not in the form of some kind of database, it is unlikely to lend itself to statistical evaluation, that much is correct.

Well, I'm sorry, but being provocative is NOT your privilege, here or elswhere.


Evasion. How does the fact that statistical record is in dispute (and of course it is, as anything else) invalidate my statement about anecdotes.

Now, THAT is distortion for you. First of all we haven't discussed that figure at all. It is the evaluation of ONE researcher, and it includes, as far as I have read the paper, even fairly trivial formal errors. If we were to nitpick enough, I'm sure we could bring that figure to 100%. NOBODY is perfect, Neil.

Secondly, as I have outlined above, a true anecdote has zero proof value. So even 50% is much better.

Tantrum again? Well, it IS dismissive. Just like your reference to "professional clinical literature" is the opposite.

Hybris again. The survey includes much more mundane levels of error, and, remember, the evaluation of one researcher (or research group).

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>