in clinical practice, most licensed pharmaceutical medicines will only work on 30% of the population with the condition for which they are prescribed-......................
More on this:
The stats are shocking regards the use of conventional Chemo for cancer. Tests show it only works by a 3% rate.
A link:

• Hiding the Truth About Losing the War on Cancer
  
  May 22, 2008 ... Although surgery does have some success against a limited number of cancers, chemo and radiation achieve at best a 3% increase in length of ...
  www.naturalnews.com/023286.html
• Despite the dismal record, those in the $300 Billion a year cancer industry appear determined to maintain a stranglehold on treatment. One way they do so is to suppress natural alternatives.(like using Homeopathy) Another is to misreport their success rates by altering statistics to make their success appear to be much better than it actually is.

Yet patients trust their MD's and follow the path to long suffering and eventual death.
You would think with a horrid 3% success rate no one would have this atrocious treatment done! Blind faith in Big Pharma,Propaganda by the world of allopathy!
Fear tactics by conventional Medical practicioners.

The same Clueless patients that choose Chemo for Cancer are screaming Flatulent discussions like this:

The flip side of the coin- "prove that homeopathy works!!!!" Its Not scientificly proven! (has been for 200yrs)
The same old skeptics continue to post rhetoric,without fully undertanding the complex subject of quantum physics (string theory)and how its most closely related to the world of homeopathic principles.

__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

While I know that chemo and radiotherapy don't have very high success rates, I can't actually find any reliable source that quotes any numbers after a brief search online - apart from for very specific small trials which vary wildly and aren't a good source of numbers to quote.

Your linked site is, of course, a pro-homeopathy resource, inherently anti-medicine, and I don't feel compelled to give it much weight. Something impartial would be better. Backing up non-scientific claims with other non-scientific sites is circular.

Suppose it's accurate. Then we have

chemo ~= 3% greater survival.
homeo = 0% greater survival.

Unless you claim homeopathy can cure cancer? In anything other than an anecdote or an uncontrolled situation?

The same old skeptics continue to post rhetoric.............here we go again............................................. ..............................................

What is the point where are you going with all this anyway?
Ok lets continue-

.................................................. ............ its available moopet-
Why dont you do some googlework -yourself-
searchyou dont like me posting links ,go find it yourself)


"Ramakrishnan" Homeopath(He is the homeopathic physician to the president of India ) that has cured thousands of cancer cases............................................. ...........His website/contact info is for the public to see,contact him yourself!Ask for details on his casework,Its you that wants this proof is it not?

Too lazy to find this info? (you have not once come up with facts/links/documents to back up ANYTHING you have posted here)

If you have problems finding the info just let me know
Or perhaps you have a dislike for "my" search engine qualifications,I am a -blizzard- in finding documents as you well know moopet!!!!!!

__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

Why have you chosen to only respond to this one point? My area of expertise among the sciences is in homeopathy. I do not claim to be an expert in placebo effect. Nevertheless my understanding is as follows-

Placebo effect is widely variable depending on the condition in which it is being observed. In RDBPCT's it most commonly affects between 20% and 40% (there are exceptions) of the placebo control group. For the purposes of conversation, around 30% is regarded as an acceptable average, although this is unquestionably an arbitrary figure. The scientific community is still very much in the process of investigating placebo effect.

One must question the logic of using such a widely variable, poorly understood phenomenon as a control for a drug trial. It is only necessary because pharmaceutical medicines, on the whole, have such an unconvincing rate of success. By showing that they are marginally better than placebo (in relation to that particular control group) they establish that they are at least better than nothing. If all pharmaceutical medicines in clinical trials had to achieve a success rate of 75% or more, placebo controls would not be necessary.

I repeat my question, why so much faith in RDBPCT's? There are many other valid ways to assess the effectiveness of a therapy. RDBPCT's will not accurately reflect homeopathy's success rate. At best, the results of a clinical trial for homeopathy can only ever reflect the ability of the prescriber. Isn't a scientific experiment supposed to be designed in such a manner as to rigorously test the specific hypothesis? Why insist on one that does not? Anecdotal/statistical evidence is is a far better measure of homeopathy's effectiveness. Why refuse to accept it?

In homeopathy, a medicine is given to healthy people to see how it disturbs health and what specific symptom syndromes it produces (our version of a clinical trial). When we see the exact same symptom syndromes occurring naturally in a person who is sick, we can be sure that the medicine will cure the patient in accordance with the Law of Similars, which Hahnemann established, through scientific experimentation, to be the Curative Principle in Medicine.

The way pharmaceutical medicines are developed through RDBPCT's and prescribed through trial and error, often without understanding the full effects of the medicines used, is decidedly hit and miss. Where is the science theory? What are the Laws governing the science? If there are no Laws how can we even call it a Science?

Homeopathy is the Pure Science of Medical Therapeutics (the science which governs the administering of medicines in order to cure diseases).

__________________
These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

Any pharmaceutical medicine in large enough doses will have an effect 100% of the time! I'm not sure what your point is here?




Agreed! Placebo effect relates more to subjective symptoms than objective symptoms, although there must be exceptions. Can we also agree then, that placebo effect can be ruled out when homeopathy appears to be effective in treating anything other than simple self-limiting conditions and short-term pain problems? Can placebo effect be ruled out when objective signs and symptoms resolve under homeopathic treatment?

__________________
These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

Frankly, I'm fed up of people trying to derail the threads by throwing in information, links, other people's text etc. Go through Gina's posts and count how many times she answers my questions, ever

Placebo controls are necessary because there is a placebo effect.
Showing that you are better than placebo, which in turn may be better than nothing, is better than showing you are better than nothing, which may not be better than placebo. Placebo is, to all intents, the standard for biochemical "nothing", because it's helping to rule out psychological effects.
It's the best we can do, isn't it?

If the results are repeatable and under basic controls to avoid sample tainting, etc, yes. Seems fair to me.

I have been unable to find anything saying he has any success that doesn't use his own book as a reference.

This is an example of such logic:

"I can fly. I wrote a book saying I can fly. Don't believe me? It says right here in my book!"

"Ask for details on his casework"..................................As I said before.

Moopet said:"Frankly, I'm fed up of people trying to derail the threads by throwing in information, links, other people's text etc. Go through Gina's posts and count how many times she answers my questions........................"

Quote Moopet:
You said:"chemo ~= 3% greater survival.
homeo = 0% greater survival.

Unless you claim homeopathy can cure cancer?".......................................... ............I have not derailed anything,we are still on the same subject here.You are the one that asked the question.



To answer your questionall my other answers have jumped right over your head)
A massive list of his "cured patient" database is most likely an option you must follow if you are truly interested in this question.

Ask for the contact info of these patients
Ask for Emails
Ask for phone numbers
Ask for hospital charts
Ask for X-rays
Ask for Labtests
Ask for the allopathic diagnosis
Ask for a full casehistory(before+after)
I am sure out of thousands of patients many would be happy to tell you their outcome,speak to the patients themself..........................................

How long did you spend on your Dr.Ramakrishnan Cancer research Moopet a few minutes via Google? That just is not enough to seek Your scientific thrist for information,Do you think Scientist spend a few minutes on cancer reasearch?

__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein