Homeopathy is Fake? _{Page 3 of 4}

Rajivprassad,

I have a little thought exercise for you to try. Suppose a person came to you and said that they could cause aircraft to land at the local airport by waving their left hand. You have a look at it, and sure enough, when they wave their left hand for long enough, a plane lands. You even try it yourself - YOU wave your left hand for a while, and a plane lands! Wow - you both have this power, and it works right before your eyes. Then lots of people try it - they wave their left hands, and planes are landing at airports near them too.

So it's a scientifically proven fact now that waving your left hand will cause a plane to land eventually. True?

ZepOz,

I thought you had more brains than what is revealed through your ill conceived example.You can wave both your hands, legs and head as well while making your posts on this forum.You may fall from your stool or chair or whatever you use to sit while typing all this crap.It is not going to impact any one here who has used homeopathy as a healer or as a patient.

I may laugh at your bad joke.What else next?

Come on man.I am waiting for your next attempt at a joke.

Rajiv

ZepOz

What and inductive mind?

i'm certainly no fool, i'm a trial attorney and I know bull#^$% when I see it. I tried everything for my skin issues. drugs for 30 years, which brought only temporary relief, and then several years of any alternative and herbal treatment I could (except homeopathy because I believed it was only placebo). out of sheer desperation I tried homeopathy and was shocked by how fast and how well it work. but more importantly, how deeply it worked on a mental and physical level, on issues that most doctors would consider unrelated to skin. If you get some desperate illness, and modern medicine fails you (which it usually does for chronic conditions) I hope you can divorce yourself from your prejudices long enough to give homeopathy a try. it may save your life.

John

Dear John,

I express my heartfelt gratitude to you for so openly and strongly supporting homeopathy with your own personal example.Certainly an attorney lives and breathes in the world of logic and evidences.If there is one professional who is the most difficult to fool, it is an attorney.

But for these guys we all may be liars or hallucinating.All the great homeopaths of yesteryears and today's world are all liars, hallucinating, fools or what not.What prejudice?What mockery of reason and humanity?How can a human being be so prejudiced to deny such overwhelming evidence in terms of cures achieved where the modern medicine threw their hands up.

My father had suffered a huge brain haemorrhafge and the doctors in the best hospital of one of the biggest cities of my country said he will die in a day or two.I used homeopathic remedies on him with the hospital's management and he recovered.He led my son's birthday song on his first birthday just 7 months later.The top neurologists of my country kept telling me this is not possible.It can't be real.

But of course i am a liar, you are a liar and everyone else who has benefited from homeopathy is a liar.All of us are waving our left hand or right hand and then the plane lands.We think our waving of the hands has made the plane land.

What nonsense is this?Is it a joke or what?Is it a homeopathy forum?Or is it not?

I wish the moderator made his views known.

Rajiv

RajivSajjad said:

'I thought you had more brains than what is revealed through your ill conceived example.You can wave both your hands, legs and head as well while making your posts on this forum.You may fall from your stool or chair or whatever you use to sit while typing all this crap.It is not going to impact any one here who has used homeopathy as a healer or as a patient.

I may laugh at your bad joke.What else next?

Come on man.I am waiting for your next attempt at a joke. '



Perhaps you might calm down a bit, and explain to me why my thought experiment IS a joke? In detail, please? You can do it if you try, can't you?



John, you say you know bull**** when you see it. Then please tell me what is the bull**** in my little thought experiment above. It IS very relevant to the subject, as I'm sure you are well aware.

Or are you just going to change the subject and avoid the situation...just because you have already decided WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE WHATEVER that I am a sceptic to your point of view? I don't think good trial attorneys do that, do they?

Sergio, I don't understand your question. Want to try that a bit differently?

Your thought experiment is a joke because you posted it straight after i said in my earlier post that for someone who is a regular user of homeopathic remedies, the fact of their working is very natural.I also said that i have treated hundreds of chronic cases successfully with homeopathy.

Then came your thought experiment equating waving of left hand with landing of aeroplane and then people assuming the power to make the planes land with a wave of hand as residing in them.Which clearly implies the people that i have treated successfully were cured on their own (landing of the aeroplane) and the waving of the left hand (taking homeopathic remedies) had nothing to do with it.So, i am a fool or a deluded poor thing to believe that homeopathic remedies had anything to do with those cases.

That is why i thought it was an ill conceived joke and said so.

Regarding your being a sceptic you accepted it on the other thread where i said that 'Indeed....ignorance is bliss.May the sceptics enjoy their bliss while it lasts.'

You replied, 'will do so.'This is clear acceptance of the tag of being a 'sceptic'.One doesn't need to be an attorney to draw this conclusion.

Now, i do not wish to engage with you or any other sceptic as i consider it a waste of my time.Excuse me if you will.

Rajiv

Thank you for your comment, Rajiv. Now, what's your opinion on that example?

And as I said in the other thread, I fail to see what you are running away from... Is just one hobbled old sceptic SO scary to you?

My dear Zep,

A nice trap.The Chess player in me likes it.You may find some other worthy opponent on this forum.

Enjoy while playing these little old games of yours.I got better things to do.

Rajiv

I don't play chess. Correction: I CAN'T play chess. I'm just not very good at all. Really.

So what 'trap' is that again, Sajiv?



Again, can we get back to commentary on the opening post, please.

Dear Zep0z,

I was following this thread for some time. I would like to comment on one of your post (given below).

'....... those science subjects are well-known and understood by many scientists (myself included). So saying that things have to wait until science progresses in order to understand them is just avoiding the issue.

Scientists have long been able to manipulate single atoms and measure the charges of individual hadrons (nuclear particles). So a competent explanation for any sub-atomic support for homeopathy is certainly measureable by today's researchers. Can you point us to any such theory? ........'

In light of the above comments, i would like to quote from Wikipedia on dark matter and dark energy.

'....Only about 4% of the total energy density in the universe (as inferred from gravitational effects) can be seen directly.
About 22% is thought to be composed of dark matter.
The remaining 74% is thought to consist of dark energy, an even stranger component, distributed diffusely in space.
The composition of dark matter is unknown, but may include new elementary particles such as WIMPs and axions, ordinary and heavy neutrinos, dwarf stars and planets collectively called MACHOs, and clouds of nonluminous gas.
.... Determining the nature of this missing mass is one of the most important problems in modern cosmology and particle physics. It has been noted that the names 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance, much as the marking of early maps with terra incognita......'


My personal feeling is that Homeopathy works and the present day science is not well advanced to prove how it works. I myself is curious to know how the rightly chosen homeopathic remedies work.

Being a scientist yourself, you may agree that , human being's scientific knowledge is restricted to only 4% of the energetic universe. remaining 22%(dark matter) is only on the realms of postulates and the rest 74%(dark energy) is totally unknown.

That being the case of present knowledge of energy dynamics and fundamental particles,what is the need to question the scientific basis of homeopathy?( after all it is a system which tries to alleviates the suffering humanity). Will it not be advisable to wait till our science advances further and prove how it works ?

Anil,

Thank you for doing some good research! If I may, I'd just like to correct a misunderstanding or two you seem to have from it.

You said: 'Being a scientist yourself, you may agree that , human being's scientific knowledge is restricted to only 4% of the energetic universe. remaining 22%(dark matter) is only on the realms of postulates and the rest 74%(dark energy) is totally unknown.'

The amount and type of energy in the universe has no direct relationship to our level of understanding it. This information about dark matter is simply not known to us...yet, but we are quite capable of understanding it. In fact, we infer its existence from already observed data.

The opening paragraph of the same article shows where these ideas are drawn from: 'In astrophysics, dark matter is matter that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence may be inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter. Among the observed phenomena consistent with the existence of dark matter are the rotational speeds of galaxies and orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark matter also plays a central role in structure formation and Big Bang nucleosynthesis, and has measurable effects on the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than is directly observable, indicating that the remainder is dark.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Of course, there's much to be learned yet, we are sure. But I fail to understand how this relates to homeopathy. Perhaps you can explain?

Oh, the second point, Anil.

Can you read the thought experiment I posted above, and give me a considered response on it?

Dear All ,

I want to clear one of my doubts in this forum.
Iam afraid that i may be digressing from the main topic of Homeopathy and also look silly by asking these questions.

We all know , that for any action , there should be a thought process behind it.

All our actions are based upon the past experiences, logical thinking and the ability to predict the possible outcomes.

In winter season ,we wear woollen sweaters and thick clothes to protect us from cold. In the rainy season, we take an umbrella or wear rain coat to prevent us from getting drenched.

Many of us might have seen thorny plants which protect itself from herbivorous animals.Certain plants have hardy thorns on the leaves itself.
How did this plant know that by having a thorn it can pierce the soft oral skin and deter the herbivore from foraging its leaves?
Does it have a brain to think ?.
There are some butterflies whose wings when wide open , have the design of an owl's wide open eye and scare away its predators.
How does the butterfly know that a owl can scare away its predators and recreate the image of its eye on its own body. ( we humans can tattoo on our body. but how does the butter fly do it?)
There is a species of snake (with black rings on red back ground which is very poisonous). And a totally different species of snake which is not poisonous , mimics its poisonous cousin by having the exact colour and designon its own body.
How did the second guy( non poisonous snake) know that the first guy is poisonous?
Who told this second guy that if you have that scary colour on your body you will be safe?

I dont want the answer ' evolution ' because it does not explain anything and does not appeal to me.
If any body can explain rationally ,please do it in this forum.
My special invitation to zepoz for joining this discussion

Let me make it very clear that i dont want to kick start any argument with anybody. its just a discussion.
Anil

Dear Zepoz,

As you said,

'.....Of course, there's much to be learned yet, we are sure. But I fail to understand how this relates to homeopathy. Perhaps you can explain?.....'

I also am of the opinion that much is to be learned in Homeopathy and the present day science is not mature enough to understand the subtelities of homeopathic science.
regards,
Anil

Dear Zepoz,
Dear Zepoz

Again quoting your words,

'.....The amount and type of energy in the universe has no direct relationship to our level of understanding it. This information about dark matter is simply not known to us...yet, but we are quite capable of understanding it. In fact, we infer its existence from already observed data. .....'

I infer the efficacy of homeopathy system of medicine from the observed data.(cured cases)

coming to your airport argument, you mean to say that disease's cure on its own irrespective of the h'pathic medicine given?

or to put it shortly,your argument is that homeopathic medicine does not have any curative power. Is that what you mean?
But your argument ,if i extend to other systems of medicine (say allopathy) how would you answer me?
The most popular system of medicine is allopathic and homeo comes only second. But even after following allopathic system(the most popular), there are terminally ill patients and death from diseases. Tens of thousand people die of AIDS,cancer, kidney diseases and what not.
Even the seemingly simple Blood pressure cannot be cured.( My BP ia termed as -Essential Hypertension- because the reason is not known). Is there a cure for diabetics?
In Allopathic system people recover from disease as well as die.
My argument is that since millions of people follow allopathic medicine , we should find out whether in the biggest airport (allopathic) the doctors are waving there hands and fleecing there patients . Then we will discuss about this smaller airport( homeopathic) :)

I personally prefer homeopathic airport for landing because it seems to be more safer. I dont know in which airport you prefer to land and take off? ;)
with regards,
Anil

Thank you Anil for your reply. I can tell from your post you are a very intelligent person who would like to know the facts. In conventional (or allopath as you call it) medicine, drugs are proved by a process called large scale double blind testing. I suggest you find out more about this process before replying.

Double blind testing means that a group of people are divided up into two groups. One is given a sugar pill (this is called the control group). The other is given the new drug. Neither the patient nor the doctors know who is getting the sugar pill and who is getting the new drug. Hence the name double blind. If the doctors can work out who is getting the drug and who is getting the sugar pill from how they observe the patent then the researchers know the drug works. If there is no difference between the sugar pill and the drug then they know the drug does not work.

One simple example. Someone comes up with a drug that he claims cures the common cold. They follow the procedure as above. In both the sugar pill group and the group receiving the drug, people are cured in about 6 days. Question. Is the drug any good? If the control group did not exist you could say yes. However as there was not difference between the two groups the answer is no.

there are many double blind proves with different homeopathic remedies with very good results

Good. Request you post a few here.

Just reread your post. What I am after is a large-scale double blind study of homeopathy drugs curing sick people.

It would be very good to know in which peer-reviewed magazine the study appeared.

This is not a hard job as this is the standard for conventional medicine.

I am not interested in the stage called 'proving' where healthy people are given drugs to see what effect it has on them.

Anil,

I will aggregate my responses to your questions to save diverging this thread. And no-one is ever silly if they ask questions - that's how we learn things. (I ask lots of questions!)

You described the use of camouflage and deceptive markings used by animals to fool predators. Here's how it worked:

Consider the markings themselves: Most of them were initially fairly random, but as a general rule, the offspring had similar markings to their parents (you look a bit like your father and mother but not identical). Out of all these markings, some of them looked similar to other animals that scared their attackers away. These animals were therefore less likely to end up dead (eaten), and more likely to reproduce. Therefore, as time passed, more and more of the offspring had markings that were likely to scare attackers, until most of the survivors had those markings. In summary, the animals did not need to 'know' this trick at all, they were just the descendants of those lucky enough to survive long enough to reproduce more.

Same basic idea for thorny plants, incidentally. And this is backed up with a fair amount of paleological evidence.


You then said: '...the present day science is not mature enough to understand the subtelities of homeopathic science.' Do YOU understand these subtleties of homeopathic science? If not, is there anyone who does? Can you please point me to them?

You said: 'I infer the efficacy of homeopathy system of medicine from the observed data.(cured cases)' This statement is called an Argumentum Ad Populum. Can I suggest you Google that phrase?

Referring to my airport example, your second statement does not follow from your first statement. However you have half grasped the point subsequently. In general, I'm talking about how we test various claims adequately. So what would be the first step in my example?

Dear Zep,

You are making a fundamental mistake by calling the inferring of efficacy of homeopathic remedies as an 'argumentum ad populum'.An 'argumentum ad populum' is a logical fallacy where a large number of people believe in a thing and hence it is supposed to be true. For example, a majority believe in God and hence God exists.That would be an argumentum ad populum.

But holding this belief does not make God appear before a set of people praying to him.This is not the case with what Anil said.He means that he has seen people sick (it may be he himself).The homeopathic remedy was administered and the fever subsided or the coughing stopped or whatever.Nothing else was done to counteract the illness.This is not an 'argumentum ad populum'.In fact what you are doing is an 'argumentum ad populum'.A large number of sceptics believe that homeopathy is fake and hence it is fake.

So you are guilty of the logical error that you are accusing Anil of!!Which is quite interesting.

Rajiv

Rajiv,

Firstly, you are resorting to a logical fallacy yourself, commonly know as a 'strawman fallacy'. That is where you invent things that your 'opponent' has not said, then proceed to attack those inventions and not the real arguments. I repeat: Skeptics do NOT 'believe' homeopathy is fake at all.

And my mistake - I agree with you: The logical fallacy argumentum ad populum is not the one applicable to my example. Instead, perhaps, would you agree that it is a 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' logical fallacy?

I throw my hands up.Have a nice time here Zep.By my temperament i do not like to argue too much.

Rajiv

As you wish, Rajiv. The discussion was only just starting to be fruitful too.

Oh well.