The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Split

Homeopathy, Chiropractic and similar "alternative" views

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Split

#1  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » May 20, 2010 10:57 am

angelo wrote: The dilutions used is something of the order of a million to one, in a very conservative estimate. .... The reason they are still in business is purely by the power of ''Big Placebo''.


Many people do not seem to be able to grasp the simple fact that homeopathy medicines are not made using dilution alone. Dilution alone would do nothing whatsoever without SUCCUSSION. Succussion is conducted between each numerical potency, i.e. between a 1c and a 2c, a 2c and a 3c, etc.

Placebo effects in homeopathy are no greater than in conventional medicine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129180


!
MODNOTE
Split from here. - Mazille
User avatar
Dr. Nancy Malik
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Dr. Nancy Malik
Posts: 289
Age: 41
Female

Country: India
India (in)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#2  Postby angelo » May 20, 2010 12:36 pm

Homeopathy works on placebo only, which averages out to around 30 %. Conventional medicine works up to 95%.
User avatar
angelo
 
Posts: 22483
Age: 71
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#3  Postby Crocodile Gandhi » May 20, 2010 1:11 pm

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
angelo wrote: The dilutions used is something of the order of a million to one, in a very conservative estimate. .... The reason they are still in business is purely by the power of ''Big Placebo''.


Many people do not seem to be able to grasp the simple fact that homeopathy medicines are not made using dilution alone. Dilution alone would do nothing whatsoever without SUCCUSSION. Succussion is conducted between each numerical potency, i.e. between a 1c and a 2c, a 2c and a 3c, etc.

Placebo effects in homeopathy are no greater than in conventional medicine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129180


I googled your name and have found out that you have a degree in homeopathic medicine. I was unaware that such a degree even existed. Is it recognised by any medical organisations?
If I believe in heaven I deny myself a death. Dying keeps me conscious of the way I waste my breath - Cosmo Jarvis
User avatar
Crocodile Gandhi
RS Donator
 
Name: Dave
Posts: 4142
Age: 29
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#4  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » May 20, 2010 5:12 pm

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:I googled your name and have found out that you have a degree in homeopathic medicine. I was unaware that such a degree even existed. Is it recognised by any medical organisations?


The legal status of homeopathy medicine in India is on an equal footing with both conventional and Ayurvedic medicine. It is recognised by Central Council of Homeopathy, Deptt. of AYUSH, Govt. of India since 1973.

Regular full time medical degree for a minimum period of 5 1/2 years (BHMS) that includes one year compulsory internship, is absolutely necessary for becoming qualified & to get license to practice homeopathy medicine in India as it gives a complete understanding not only about the structure and functioning of the human body but also a thorough understanding of the homeopathic philosophy and its practical utilization while treating diseased persons. And to do regular full time M.D. in homeopathy medicine further, admission is through an entrance examination, and you have to spend three more years after BHMS.
Evidence-based scientific homeopathy is a modern nano-medicine like Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM)
User avatar
Dr. Nancy Malik
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Dr. Nancy Malik
Posts: 289
Age: 41
Female

Country: India
India (in)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#5  Postby natselrox » May 20, 2010 5:15 pm

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Crocodile Gandhi wrote:I googled your name and have found out that you have a degree in homeopathic medicine. I was unaware that such a degree even existed. Is it recognised by any medical organisations?


The legal status of homeopathy medicine in India is on an equal footing with both conventional and Ayurvedic medicine. It is recognised by Central Council of Homeopathy, Deptt. of AYUSH, Govt. of India since 1973.

Regular full time medical degree for a minimum period of 5 1/2 years (BHMS) that includes one year compulsory internship, is absolutely necessary for becoming qualified & to get license to practice homeopathy medicine in India as it gives a complete understanding not only about the structure and functioning of the human body but also a thorough understanding of the homeopathic philosophy and its practical utilization while treating diseased persons. And to do regular full time M.D. in homeopathy medicine further, admission is through an entrance examination, and you have to spend three more years after BHMS.


There must be some way out of here...

:picard:
When in perplexity, read on.

"A system that values obedience over curiosity isn’t education and it definitely isn’t science"
User avatar
natselrox
 
Posts: 10037
Age: 108
Male

India (in)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#6  Postby GenesForLife » May 20, 2010 6:11 pm

Right, since you have a medicine degree and not one in science, care to point us to the requisite double blind studies describing and detailing, among other things...

1)The emprical rigour of succussion and dilution in relation to potency.
2) Double blind clinical trials that have shown any kind of statistically significant efficacy (I can cite papers from Lancet which suggests that the field per se is bunkum, and since these are peer reviewed papers with available data supplements, one cannot get away by crying "bias")
3) Double blind studies that indicate an efficacy that is better than conventional medicine (anything worse and homeopathy is tantamount to denial of more efficacious therapy)

Go on, take your pick. I'm looking for proper empirical evidence.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#7  Postby natselrox » May 20, 2010 6:13 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2lq9wGHtb4[/youtube]

Comrade.
When in perplexity, read on.

"A system that values obedience over curiosity isn’t education and it definitely isn’t science"
User avatar
natselrox
 
Posts: 10037
Age: 108
Male

India (in)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#8  Postby GenesForLife » May 20, 2010 6:17 pm

The bad thing about the MoH and medicine here is that it is completely woobegoneTM in a lot of cases.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#9  Postby generalsemanticist » May 21, 2010 11:46 am

It is truly sad to see this obsession with "double blind" studies. It seems like a futile attempt to establish a one cause => one effect model which is very simplistic. It is, however, very useful for companies with drug patents to make large amounts of money. There have been over a thousand "double blind" studies of statin drugs, for example. You will not see these studies done (by private companies) if there are no patents involved so please stop using this irrelevant argument ad nauseum. You need to look at the larger picture of health and realize that you cannot separate the brain from the body and if healing can be accomplished by any means that is what is important.
Always and Never are 2 words you always remember never to use.
User avatar
generalsemanticist
 
Posts: 169
Age: 65
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#10  Postby angelo » May 21, 2010 12:05 pm

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Crocodile Gandhi wrote:I googled your name and have found out that you have a degree in homeopathic medicine. I was unaware that such a degree even existed. Is it recognised by any medical organisations?


The legal status of homeopathy medicine in India is on an equal footing with both conventional and Ayurvedic medicine. It is recognised by Central Council of Homeopathy, Deptt. of AYUSH, Govt. of India since 1973.

Regular full time medical degree for a minimum period of 5 1/2 years (BHMS) that includes one year compulsory internship, is absolutely necessary for becoming qualified & to get license to practice homeopathy medicine in India as it gives a complete understanding not only about the structure and functioning of the human body but also a thorough understanding of the homeopathic philosophy and its practical utilization while treating diseased persons. And to do regular full time M.D. in homeopathy medicine further, admission is through an entrance examination, and you have to spend three more years after BHMS.

Could you perform a small operation, like say, removing a lesion or a biopsy Doc ? A person with acute appendicitis could end up dead if instead of consulting and getting treatment from a real doctor, they came to you instead. Isn't that so?
User avatar
angelo
 
Posts: 22483
Age: 71
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#11  Postby Darkchilde » May 21, 2010 12:07 pm

generalsemanticist wrote:It is truly sad to see this obsession with "double blind" studies. It seems like a futile attempt to establish a one cause => one effect model which is very simplistic. It is, however, very useful for companies with drug patents to make large amounts of money. There have been over a thousand "double blind" studies of statin drugs, for example. You will not see these studies done (by private companies) if there are no patents involved so please stop using this irrelevant argument ad nauseum. You need to look at the larger picture of health and realize that you cannot separate the brain from the body and if healing can be accomplished by any means that is what is important.


You are wrong there.

Double blind studies are made in order to assess the effectiveness of a drug. The only drugs that are not required to do this are homeopathic drugs, which do not work anyway. Of course, there are times when certain companies, will label their products as "homeopathic" in order to avoid doing those studies, and we have results like the Zicam affair. If you are not familiar with it, here is a wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zicam

I would not use a drug that has not been tested. I would never take any homeopathic crap, as it does not work. If I take a medicine, I want it to be tested, and to have in the box, the little paper informing me of its contents, what it does, and what are probable side-effects.
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 50
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#12  Postby GenesForLife » May 21, 2010 2:02 pm

You're right Darkchilde, it is a method to assess efficacy and the double blinding helps one to prevent fudging and experimenter bias, it has nothing to do with reductionism, and any attempt to make it seem so is bollocks of the highest order.

Also, coming to your "any means" canard, generalsemanticist, it should be "any means actually shown to work". Anything else is airy fairy woo.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#13  Postby generalsemanticist » May 21, 2010 5:37 pm

The human body is complex - some things work on some people sometimes but not others. This is a fact, deal with it.
Always and Never are 2 words you always remember never to use.
User avatar
generalsemanticist
 
Posts: 169
Age: 65
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#14  Postby natselrox » May 21, 2010 5:39 pm

generalsemanticist wrote:The human body is complex - some things work on some people sometimes but not others. This is a fact, deal with it.


Try cyanide.
When in perplexity, read on.

"A system that values obedience over curiosity isn’t education and it definitely isn’t science"
User avatar
natselrox
 
Posts: 10037
Age: 108
Male

India (in)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#15  Postby GenesForLife » May 21, 2010 6:13 pm

generalsemanticist wrote:The human body is complex - some things work on some people sometimes but not others. This is a fact, deal with it.


Non sequitur, deal with it, some conventional drugs not working on some people doesn't mean woo automatically works.

And the principles of biochemistry are much the same regardless of the little variation here and there in terms of MCNVs and the like , and even if we were to account for your supposed therapeutic plasticity, the efficacy rates with conventional medicine far outperform woo, and that is fact too, deal with it. :dopey: , and the fact is, if it works it'll go straight into conventional medicine and won't need to be alternative, got any evidence of woo doing as well as conventional medicine?

Evidence is important, deal with it! :mrgreen:
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#16  Postby Moridin » May 21, 2010 7:04 pm

generalsemanticist wrote:The human body is complex - some things work on some people sometimes but not others. This is a fact, deal with it.


This is the exact reason why we even have scientific studies to begin with! Scientific studies allows us to exclude such statistical anomalies.

If a drug performs statistically no better than placebo, then it has no real effect. This is the fact, deal with it.
User avatar
Moridin
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#17  Postby Moridin » May 21, 2010 7:11 pm

generalsemanticist wrote:It is truly sad to see this obsession with "double blind" studies. It seems like a futile attempt to establish a one cause => one effect model which is very simplistic.


No, double blind studies are done so that what we are testing the effectiveness or lack thereof of the drug itself, not other factors, such as psychological factors. It only tries to establish whether or not a drug has a statistically significant effect or not.

It is, however, very useful for companies with drug patents to make large amounts of money.


No, profit hungry drug companies hate controlled, double-blind experiments, because then they must actually produce a drug that works in order to make money. If it does not work, it won't pass the experiments. If it does not pass the experiments, it won't get put on the market. If it is not on the market, it cannot sell. If it cannot sell, it won't make any amount of money.

It is very ironic that you use the Big Pharma gambit, yet fail to understand that the CAM industry ("Big Placebo") is a 60 billion dollar industry per year for things that are demonstrably useless. Both Big Pharma and Big Placebo makes lots of money. The question is; who produces drugs that actually work? Big Pharma generally does; Big Placebo generally does not.

It is completely irrelevant if a person or company make a large amount of money; what matters is whether or not the drug did what it promised to do.
User avatar
Moridin
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#18  Postby generalsemanticist » May 21, 2010 8:04 pm

Look at statin drugs. Yes they lower chloresterol but they deplete CoQ10 and can actually cause heart failure. Now there is some irony for you. If you want to take that poison, be my guest. It is so retarded to develop a drug that lowers chloresterol without finding out why it is elevated in the first place. This is the main problem with modern medicine - it treats symptoms instead of causes. At least orthomolecular medicine attempts to form a theory about what is happening, like the theory about the breakdown of collagen in the blood vessels and the susequent increase of Lp(a) in the blood to attempt to patch the lesion. Is it possible that proper levels of Vit C can stop this and even reverse it? Who is going to pay to find out? If I was a Vit C manufacturer I would like to increase sales but if I fund expensive research then any other manufacturer can take advantage of it so why would I bother? The health business does not work the same as the sickness business.
Always and Never are 2 words you always remember never to use.
User avatar
generalsemanticist
 
Posts: 169
Age: 65
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#19  Postby Moridin » May 21, 2010 8:22 pm

generalsemanticist wrote:Look at statin drugs. Yes they lower chloresterol but they deplete CoQ10 and can actually cause heart failure. Now there is some irony for you. If you want to take that poison, be my guest.


No substance is intrinsically toxic. Toxicity depends on dose. Yes, all medications have risks associated with them. There is no such thing as a risk free medicine (or food item). This is an illusion. Even something basic as aspirin can cause bleeding ulcers if used regularly for a long time.

You have to compare the risk of keeping the drug on the market (in your example, this was a slight elevated chance of hearth failure) with the risk of keeping the drug off the market (related disease and deaths caused by high levels of cholesterol). In many cases, you might find that the risks of keeping it off the market is much greater than the risk of keeping it on the market.

Also note that this is a tightly regulated industry, with the precautionary principle being applied frequently (such as in the case of Vioxx, silicone breast implants, thimerosal etc.)

It is so retarded to develop a drug that lowers chloresterol without finding out why it is elevated in the first place.


No, it isn't. Would you say that developing a drug that cures a specific cancer is worthless if we do not know the exact cause of cancer? In fact, developing a drug that cures a specific cancer is one way to actually aid in discovering the exact mechanisms underlying this specific conditions.

This is the main problem with modern medicine - it treats symptoms instead of causes.


Modern medicine actually treats both symptoms (various painkillers) and causes (antibiotics), as well as act preventative manner (such as vaccines). Your assertion is based on no real knowledge of the field of modern medicine.

Is it possible that proper levels of Vit C can stop this and even reverse it? Who is going to pay to find out?


If it is possible that a certain level of vitamin C can help, then this will be revealed in controlled, double-blind scientific studies. If there is even a slight chance that vitamin C can help, big pharmaceutical corporations would immediately be interested, because that means that they would be able to sell many new brands of drugs on the market, patenting formulas and names and make a fortune, especially if vitamin C actually treated something that there was no treatment for before. They would make billions of dollars.

There is a huge economic incentive for accepting vitamin C into evidence-based medicine if there actually was any evidence for the effects you assert that it has.

If I was a Vit C manufacturer I would like to increase sales but if I fund expensive research then any other manufacturer can take advantage of it so why would I bother?


If vitamin C actually had significant health benefits, you could do cheaper pilot studies and get funded by either governments or private corporations. It is not true that private business prefer no competition; if you are the only person selling CDs, you have to pay for all the advertisement that can attract potential customers. If you are 10 competitors selling CDs and making advertisements for the CD product, you will benefit from the increased awareness of the CD product that the other competitors help create. Often, customers try to save money, so they check different CD providers for the best price.

The health business does not work the same as the sickness business.


What you fail to understand is that Big Placebo is the sickness business.
User avatar
Moridin
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#20  Postby generalsemanticist » May 22, 2010 2:09 am

If it is possible that a certain level of vitamin C can help, then this will be revealed in controlled, double-blind scientific studies. If there is even a slight chance that vitamin C can help, big pharmaceutical corporations would immediately be interested, because that means that they would be able to sell many new brands of drugs on the market, patenting formulas and names and make a fortune, especially if vitamin C actually treated something that there was no treatment for before. They would make billions of dollars.


I'm afraid this is "woo", as you people like to say. You can't get a patent on vit C, how many time do I have to say this? If it suddenly became known that Vit C can treat atherosclerosis better and safer than statin drugs the pharmaceutical companies would lose billions of dollars - you have it ass backwards my friend.
Always and Never are 2 words you always remember never to use.
User avatar
generalsemanticist
 
Posts: 169
Age: 65
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests