"Danger" can we discus? _{Page 2 of 3}

Ryelink said:

'I have no idea what his motive for trying to dispell Homeopathy is. Im not even sure whether his facts are true or not.'

Then perhaps you might care to resolve that situation before commenting further?

As for the rest of your posts, this topic is not about me at all, it's about the opening post.

Daisy, your comment about placebo and pets is close but not quite how it happens.

However the particular situation you describe is a very good topic for discussion in veterinary care. In another thread here concerning a pet dog with 'insomnia', this exact situation was described. That thread is worth a read if the subject interests you.

Zepoz,

My convictions about homeopathy are quite firm.I don't need to convince you nor is it possible through posting or counter posting like this on any forum.Some life event as an incurable disease afflicting you or your close family treated successfully with homeopathy may convince you.I have no hope of doing so and hence won't try.

My best wishes.Please carry on with your mission here at this forum.Others may wish to engage with you in these fruitless debates.Plase excuse me from them.

Rajiv

Rajiv,

What 'mission' would that be? Where have I said that I want to change your convictions (or anyone elses' for that matter) on anything at all? And why would I bother going into any 'fight' with both hands and one foot deliberately tied behind my back?

Please don't be silly, Rajiv. I'm not an 'enemy', and I fail to understand why you want to run away when there's nothing to run away from...

Zep,

I answered you on the other thread.I am not running away.I just know as a student of Behaviour that hardened convictions are not changed by discussing.All of us are prisoners of our experiences.You have yours and i have mine.By the way, i am now glad that you were forced to accept that you are a sceptic.No harm in being a sceptic according to me till one learns better.

All the best.

Rajiv

What 'force' was required? All someone did was ask - I answered truthfully. Why should I hide it?

Incidentally, I think it is fabulous to learn new things all the time, and I'm many years from school and university now! So I have no problem at all with accepting new ideas, and changing old ones. And I've done plenty of both over my time too.

The only requirement, though, is that they need to be supported by good convincing evidence that has been rigorously tested. Otherwise we would all be accepting any old fairly tale as 'science' from every nut-case on the planet. And humankind would be going nowhere fast. Do you agree with that?

Dear Zep,

I am answering one final time for both the threads.I have the deepest respect for your craving for knowledge and ability to revise your opinions with life experiences and further education.

But tell me one thing.What are we supposed to do when we fall ill and we know that a certain homeopathic remedy will cure the illness.Wait for the time till Science discovers the reasons for its effectiveness or to take the damn thing and get rid of the illness.I have chosen the latter and that has saved my life and of so many people through my own efforts.I cannot disregard my personal experiences of successful use of homeopathic remedies taken personally and feeling their power on my own body.Or on my closest friends and relatives.

I think that the onus is on Science to show to all why these remedies work.These remedies work.So, the first step for established Science would be to accept this fact.But they won't do so.Why?Because multi-billion dollar pharma industry is affected.Homeopathic remedies are very cheap and a vial lasts for a lifetime.It makes for very poor business.Modern Science in the field of health is funded by pharma MNCs and hence they have to toe the line and hence refuse to acknowledge that homeopathy works.But despite the staunch systematic assault against it, this subject refuses to die.

Have you ever thought why is it so?It is because of the personal experiences of people with homeopathy which often border on the miraculous as in my father's brain haemorrhage case.It is easily the second most well entrenched healing modality in my country (accounting for 17-18% of global population).Word of mouth is the most powerful source of advertising.That is what has kept homeopathy alive.

I do not mean you any ill will.Sorry, if i came across as very rude.But your aeroplane thought experiment was a bit too much for me to handle given my life experiences with homeopathy.

Rajiv

Rajiv,

I'm trying not to be impolite to anyone here. It gets us nowhere.

Let me ask you: If you make a claim to me that you can fly by just flapping your arms (yes, I know it's a silly example), is it up to me to prove you CAN'T do it? Or would it be up to you to prove you CAN do it? That is, on whom is the burden of proof when such claims are made? And which is likely to yield the most conclusive proof?

There is no burden on anyone.Those who can fly (use homeopathy to heal themselves and others) would fly and those who can't won't.Those who believe that it is not possible (people like you), would not consider the possibility.The last possibility is sad but true.But those who fly know that they fly and they enjoy doing it.I do.Just like birds do not need to understand the laws of aerodynamics to fly, homeopaths do not need to understand the physics behind why these ultra dilutions called homeopathic remedies work to use them.No one is forcing you to accept any of the claims made by homeopaths and patients who have benefited from it.But on the other hand, your non-acceptance would hardly any make any difference to anyone's perspective.


I do not think in terms of burdens of proof in my life.I do what i can do and try to set examples of the possibilities.Homeopathy is only one part of my life in that sense.

Rajiv

Wouldn't that be simple to prove? - just fly. However, the problem arises if the observer (of this unusal event)is so convinced that this is an impossible feat, that he reaches for any explanation rather than concede that what he or she saw MIGHT be true.Isn't that what skeptics do? They will attribute any homeopathic cures or ameliorations to just about anything - remission, placebo, imagination - BUT NOT HOMEOPATHY, BECAUSE HOMEOPATHY CANNOT WORK. They want DB trials, when the very basis of homeopathy (individualization)is such that DB studies are unlikely to work unless modified - and if there're modified our friend the skeptic will scream foul anyway.
In short, engaging in debate with skeptics is pointless. So please pardon those of us who prefer not to waste our energy. We have experienced what we can do. You do not believe it's possible, so you call us everything from fools to charlatans. You have set notions you want to promote here in a very subtle manner, not to reason or debate, because that would require a major shift in your beliefs- and noone's expecting that. Feel free.

Ripas,

You have hit on the correct answer: The proof is simple - the person who makes the claim proves it easily by just flying! In more general terms, the burden of proof is always on the claimant. This is true not just in science but even in places like the law.

As for the rest of your post, and also Rajiv's, you seem to be making a major mistake about what a 'sceptic' believes and wants to happen. We do NOT believe any such thing about homeopathy as you say - your belief about us is simply not true. You are quite mistaken in the supposition what we will do with evidence.

All that is required, ALL that is required, to change a sceptic's mind is properly tested proof of any claim - as I said: good solid proven evidence. Did you not read above that I have indeed changed my mind an many subjects? That was because I WAS given solid proven evidence, not because I felt like it, or had a change of heart, or got paid to believe it.

And the both of you seem to have a real problem with me just being here. You both go on and on about me trying to change your beliefs and such. It's simply not true - I am NOT trying to change your beliefs, or anyone's beliefs at all. Perhaps you might point out where I have tried to do so?

What does seem peculiar though is that you have gotten ultra sensitive and extraordinarily defensive about your own beliefs in homeopathy just because I am here even though I have said nothing about it. I would have thought that your convictions would be so solid that you would be completely unfazed by any sceptic might throw at you at any time. So a single old one posting about nothing much in the same forum should be no problem for you at all. However you both seem to want to run a mile from me... I'm confused and saddened by that.

Dear Zep,

Your last assertion that i ahave a problem with you being on this forum is not true.If you remember, in one of my posts i wished you all the best for your endeavours on this forum and i also welcomed you with all sincerity.The world needs all kinds of points of views.

Nor i am running away from you or towards you.In a sense your views do not matter to me as a homeopath.Because i know that it works.Unfortunately i cannot give a scientific proof of the kind that is needed to convince people like you as it is not possible with in the paradigm set by the modern scientific methods.Double blind tests are not appropriate for testing the efficacy of homeopathic remedies because of the reasons pointed out by Ripas in his post above.Homeopathy is about individualization.Case study method is the more appropriate tool to test its efficacy.That is how homeopathic teachers impart knowledge about different remedies to their students.There are hundreds of authentic cases available in homeopathic literature if one wishes to sincerely explore the efficacy of homeopathy.

All the best.And i welcome you once again to this forum.

Rajiv

Thank you Rajiv.

You say that double-blind testing is inappropriate for testing homeopathy, and only case-studies are appropriate.

You are a very smart person and obviously understand these things. Do you think you could design a proper scientific study that still accomodated all good homeopathic practices?

If so, please describe your protocol. If not please explain why.

Please note: I will not be judging you on your response. I am genuinely interested to know how this might be done in a completely acceptable fashion. If it can be done, it could make the big breakthrough to demonstrate the scientific efficacy of homeopathy.

Dear Zep,

Thanks for the compliment.It is quite easy to convince the scientific community if they approach it with an open mind.

Here goes the protocol.Take a few cases of an illness for which allopathy has no cure and only solution which they suggest is management of the symptoms through modern medicine.For example, asthma.Split them into two groups 'A' and 'B'.Let the group 'A' be treated as usual with allopathy and group 'B' with homeopathy by a set of the very best (renowned homeopaths like Vithoulkas, Morrison, Schepper etc.) homeopaths.This experiment should be conducted for a period of 2 or 3 years.Let the patients be examined at the end of every three months by a team of impartial doctors.At the end of 3 years see how many of the patients in each group were cured or relieved of their symptoms and compare the two sets of data statistically.

But, it is not so simple because the pharma industry would never allow such a high profile experiment to reach impartial conclusions.That would sound the death knell for their business.We do not leve in an ideal world where the 'truth' always prevails.

Any ways.

Rajiv

ZepOz, I echo Rajiv - I have no problem with your being on the forum. As I said, feel free (and in fact, it's really up to nobody but the moderator. For the record, I don't have any objection to you. I might occassionally take objection at what you say, however.)
Let's go back to your example. You say, if someone makes a claim, it's up to that person to validate it. Fine. However, what I said was, if we take your example as an analogy, then EVEN IF the person flies, your explanation for that will be that he was carrying rockets on his person, he was actually Superman and so exempt from the test, (or that he was Chris Angel) or something that fits in with your understanding of possible phenomenon. Right?
Are you quite certain that what we have presumed is not true? I understand that you pull your punches on this forum, but is that not for the simple reason that you would probably be banned if you said the things you and your friends say on the JREF forum? I don't think you are trying to change my beliefs per se. I think you would like to influence patients against what you honestly think is a sham treatment. I beleive in choice - so, while you may say what you think, we are going to put in our 2-penny bit. I don't see any 'ultra-sensitive' reactions apart from irritation because we know your real opinions and have been dealing with these ideas all our working lives. I predict that your next comment will be to visit JREF and engage in debate there, where you and your friends can take off the gloves and be as obdurate as we can, and far more aggressive. Its talking apples and oranges. In short, pointless exercise.

Ripas, I will reply to you first because it will be quicker.

You are doing what is known as a 'strawman argument'. That is, making up what you think I might say, then attacking that. So let's get back to the example:

Let's reverse the roles - I will be the person claiming to fly by just flapping my arms, and you can be the judge of the test.

How would YOU design the test of fabulous flying to be completely sure that there was no explanation but that I did it solely by flapping only my arms? What controls would you put in place to ensure this was the only way it could be done?

This is an important point incidentally - I advise you to think carefully about your answer.

Rajiv,

Your protocol would be a fair one for comparative studies of two treatments. And this is indeed how they evaluate new medications and procedures against previously proven ones.

However what was being sought was a protocol to prove the scientific efficacy of homeopathy in its own right. So do you think you could perhaps adjust this protocol accordingly?

Dear Zep,

Th adjustment would be quite simple.You just remove the group to be treated by allopathy alone.Any way, asthma is supposed to be manageable by allopathy but not curable in the sense that all symptoms go away and remain away for a very long time (say 10 years for argument sake).So, at the end of the experiment period, just see how many asthmatics are cured.That will give you the results.The cure data can be examined statistically by to see whether it is statistically significant.For example, a cure rate of 10% or even 20% can be dismissed as coincidence or accidental.But a cure rate of 90 % or above would certainly prove the efficacy of homeopathy. The cured patients can be tracked for 10 yeras or more to see that the asthma has returned or not.

It is quite simple indeed if there is a will to really examine it.

Rajiv

Ah, 'strawman argument'. Okay, then, tell me if I'm wrong and if so, what you'd say if you saw a person fly. My 'making up' your arguments is based on very long and very consistent evidence, just like homeopathy.And what do you call 'attacking' you? Please - I really want to know.
As far as I'm concerned and in this context, if I saw SEVERAL people fly over decades and centuries, with no apparent help, I would think flying is possible, even if I couldn't find a scientific reason why this should be so.

Some people go so far above the maddening crowd that they assume the exalted task of deciding who is a paper tiger, who is a fool, which system works and which doesn't, which proof is valid and which is not, which experience deserves to be learned from and which does not.They some times do not understand the difference between spring water and homeopathic remedies and yet on their profile write a white lie that they are an alternative therapist with years of experience with a number of alternative healing modalities including homeopathy.

May their plane land safely too without waving any hand and drinking spring water alone.

Rajiv

Seena, please define 'personal vendetta' and kindly provide examples thereof on this thread.
Also, what exactly did you want to (really) achieve, when this discussion has been done to death? Surely as an alternative-remedies therapist, with all your case-histories and reading you know most facts about homeopathy? If you have doubts, that's one thing - if you are playing wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, that's another. Anyway, you are at liberty to ask and state your views, but please do not make false accusations if others make statements they believe in.
Good post, Rajiv. I'll take this opportunity to say that you are one of the most balanced and decent - not to mention intelligent - people on this forum.

Dear Ripas,

Thanks for the compliment.

I will make another attempt to explain the implausibility and unacceptability of treating potentised remedies as spring water.Suppose it were so for a moment.Then if a homeopath administers his remedy after careful observation in an acute case, say of cold, cough and fever after exposure to cold wind.Say he give Aconite.Now, if the remedy administered is plain water or spring water, the symptoms should not go away with in an hour or two and start to ameliorate immediately, Aconite being a very quick acting remedy.But it happens every time Aconite is administered in such cases.If the probability of a random event (pure coincidence) is taken at even 1% then there is no way it should happen twice or thrice in succession.Because in that scenario, each time the remedy is administered would become an independent event.The probability of the remedy working in 3 successive cases if it were spring water would be as low as .0001%. But if it happens 30 times or 3 million times or even more, then to call the remedy as spring water is to declare oneself as naive, a fool, or a stooge of a pharma company with a vested interest.Because the probabilities involved would be so small as to make the word 'miracle' sound like an understatement.

With warm regards,

Rajiv

Dear Seena/Sheena,

So when you have nothing left to offer as an argument you resort to name calling.Are you really an alternative therapist?Did you really understand the argument above or the above joke was to hide your ignorance of simple Mathematics?

By the way who among the two beautiful animals you have so fondly referred to above are you related to?The donkey or the camel, or both?The last one would be a marvel of nature!!

Rajiv

Dear friends,

I would like to have your opinion on the following issue.

'B' compliments 'A' for certain qualities that he likes in 'A'. Our friend 'C' does not like either 'A' or 'B' and starts to burn with jealousy and contempt.Then calls 'A' a donkey and 'B' a camel.Earlier 'C' was crying hoarse about personal vendetta on the part of some forum members without offering any proof.

Now the question is, does 'C' qualify to be the donkey or the camel of his/her joke, or a 'snake' as snake remedies are known for their jealousy in homeopathy.

I look forward to some interesting comments on this.

Rajiv