Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Weird though, to practice in a field that is constantly accused of relying solely on the placebo effect, defending it for many pages on an internet forum, and not even knowing what the placebo effect is.

the placebo effect is a real phenomenon, but those who follow mainstream science only, use it as more of a blanket term to 'explain' any medical phenomemon they either do not understand, or which does not fit in with their theories. Why is it that if a very definite effect is observed after the administration of anything 'non-orthodox', it is simply 'the placebo effect', yet when a similar effect is observed after the administration of an orthodox drug, then the effect of course is due to the drug, simply because the mechanism involved is understood? That is not science.

Actually they subtract the placebo affect from the observed effect. For example, medication X cures symptom Y 80% of the time. A placebo administered at the same time cures the symptom 40% of the time- this means the medication is good, but not great. If they got 40% for both the medication would be thrown out, hands down, before ever making it to the shelves. It's happened thousands of times.

Denying that this is how it happens without anything to back it up only serves to make the rest of your ideas that much less credible.

Wrt DB's post above, http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2040

DST70 wrote: The curious thing for me is the gap between the strength of one kind of evidence (personal) and the relative weakness or unreliability of another (scientific).

Huh?

Dudely wrote:

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Weird though, to practice in a field that is constantly accused of relying solely on the placebo effect, defending it for many pages on an internet forum, and not even knowing what the placebo effect is.

the placebo effect is a real phenomenon, but those who follow mainstream science only, use it as more of a blanket term to 'explain' any medical phenomemon they either do not understand, or which does not fit in with their theories. Why is it that if a very definite effect is observed after the administration of anything 'non-orthodox', it is simply 'the placebo effect', yet when a similar effect is observed after the administration of an orthodox drug, then the effect of course is due to the drug, simply because the mechanism involved is understood? That is not science.

Actually they subtract the placebo affect from the observed effect. For example, medication X cures symptom Y 80% of the time. A placebo administered at the same time cures the symptom 40% of the time- this means the medication is good, but not great. If they got 40% for both the medication would be thrown out, hands down, before ever making it to the shelves. It's happened thousands of times.

Denying that this is how it happens without anything to back it up only serves to make the rest of your ideas that much less credible.

It also furthers my suspicions that Nancy does not even have a rudimentary understanding of the science she is attempting to discuss. Her post above is a masterpiece of incomprehension.

I just posted this in another thread, but in contemplating how her arguments have gone since the very beginning, this image has been looming in my mind:

orpheus wrote:I just posted this in another thread, but in contemplating how her arguments have gone since the very beginning, this image has been looming in my mind:

Except that happened long ago, certainly by the time she denied the germ theory of disease.

Shrunk wrote:

orpheus wrote:I just posted this in another thread, but in contemplating how her arguments have gone since the very beginning, this image has been looming in my mind:

Except that happened long ago, certainly by the time she denied the germ theory of disease.

True, true.

Darkchilde wrote:I do not know whether you have not seen them, or you have and are avoiding those; however, here are some of the unanswered as yet questions:

2. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/the-danger-of-science-denial-alternative-medicine-split-t7418-500.html#p263782: Although Mr P, is asking generalsemanticist, I would like you, Nancy Malik to answer this, as you are a homeopath.

Medical degree in homeopathy medicine BHMS is recognised by Govt. of India.
Those conferred BHMS are "registered medical practitioner" and are allowed "Dr." title .
BHMS chap registers with Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH) http://www.cchindia.com/index.php
CCH comes under department of AYUSH, Govt of India http://indianmedicine.nic.in/

Darkchilde wrote:@DB: I do not know whether you have not seen them, or you have and are avoiding those; however, here are some of the unanswered as yet questions:

1. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/the-danger-of-science-denial-alternative-medicine-split-t7418-540.html#p264791;

To my knowledge, there's no way to check whether there were 100 succussions strokes or not between two consecutive numerical potencies. May be manufacturer can shed more light on this.

Can you answer my question?

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:@DB: I do not know whether you have not seen them, or you have and are avoiding those; however, here are some of the unanswered as yet questions:

1. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/the-danger-of-science-denial-alternative-medicine-split-t7418-540.html#p264791;

To my knowledge, there's no way to check whether there were 100 succussions strokes or not between two consecutive numerical potencies. May be manufacturer can shed more light on this.

Right, so here's an idea (And would go a long way in gaining some good will towards your pseudoscience):

Since you claim that it is the succession that confers magical properties on water (and not just the dilution, since that would mean water has a memory of everything on earth), design a way to distinguish between this group of test subjects (in any way you can think of, it can be a randomized controlled clinical trial, it can be chemical analysis, it can be a divining rod for all I care)

1) plain old water
2) water diluted (with an additive) to 30C without succession
3) water diluted (with an additive) to 30C with appropriate succession (I leave that up to you to determine what is appropriate)
4) water diluted (with an additive) to 30C with inappropriate succession

Now, lets say we will make up 10 of each (or more if it's a clinical trial) batches of these homeopathic remedies. Of course we would have a registered homeopath make up the preparations (with supervision of course, don't want any cheating). Then those preparations will be taken, split up, randomly assigned a number (with the number being recorded to keep track of which group they were in) and taken to the location of your testing conditions (whatever those may be). Your tests will be done, and you will submit your results as to which group they all belong to.

If you can determine, with any level of accuracy, which group each sample comes from, you will garner yourself some respect. Hell, do that, and you will likely be able to claim the james randi prize of a million dollars.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:I do not know whether you have not seen them, or you have and are avoiding those; however, here are some of the unanswered as yet questions:

2. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/the-danger-of-science-denial-alternative-medicine-split-t7418-500.html#p263782: Although Mr P, is asking generalsemanticist, I would like you, Nancy Malik to answer this, as you are a homeopath.

Medical degree in homeopathy medicine BHMS is recognised by Govt. of India.
Those conferred BHMS are "registered medical practitioner" and are allowed "Dr." title .
BHMS chap registers with Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH) http://www.cchindia.com/index.php
CCH comes under department of AYUSH, Govt of India http://indianmedicine.nic.in/

The question is about accountability. I do not care if a homeopath registers with whatever organization, but whether, if evidence is found that a homeopath has hurt a patient, his license as a homeopath can and will be taken away. If a homeopath will be held accountable, and his name will be de-registered.

It is not just the registration.

DST70 wrote:The curious thing for me is the gap between the strength of one kind of evidence (personal) and the relative weakness or unreliability of another (scientific).

anecdotal evidence is no substitute for actual peer reviewed scientific analysis

unreliable scientific evidence? what the f**k, seriously.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:@DB: I do not know whether you have not seen them, or you have and are avoiding those; however, here are some of the unanswered as yet questions:

1. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/the-danger-of-science-denial-alternative-medicine-split-t7418-540.html#p264791;

To my knowledge, there's no way to check whether there were 100 succussions strokes or not between two consecutive numerical potencies. May be manufacturer can shed more light on this.

So, you have no way of checking whether a homeopathic whatever it is, is made according to specifications.

On the contrary, conventional medicine has this way of checking. Just take one of the pills or solutions, put them in the appropriate machinery, and voila we have the ingredients and their percentages. Even down to the microscopic level. With conventional medicine we can check the actual medicine, we can check the ingredients, we can check the percentages, we can check for foul play, we can check...

Since you ahve no idea how to check for succussions or for numerical potencies, then your medicine either does not work or is dangerous. Since we know, that people have "overdosed" on homeopathic stuff, in the 10:23 campaign, we know that your homeopathic stuff is just plain old water with nothing in it. Otherwise people would have been rushed to the hospital in that campaign.

Yup, a UV spec reading is all that is required to verify if something is present.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:@DB: I do not know whether you have not seen them, or you have and are avoiding those; however, here are some of the unanswered as yet questions:

1. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/the-danger-of-science-denial-alternative-medicine-split-t7418-540.html#p264791;

To my knowledge, there's no way to check whether there were 100 succussions strokes or not between two consecutive numerical potencies.

Thank you.

So as far as you know, there's no detectable difference between a homoeopathic drug that has been prepared properly, and one that hasn't?

How then does the human body differentiate between one and the other?

I would have thought that if homoeopaths 'understand' how it works in the human body, they should be able to somehow replicate it in the laboratory. Unless there is no difference of course.

May be manufacturer can shed more light on this.

Think I can see a wonderful marketing opportunity here! I could put any old shit out and claim it's a homoeopathic drug and no-one would be any the wiser!

See you on eBay!

Moridin wrote:Dr. Nancy Malik, please define, in your own words, the concept of "entanglement", "Semiotic", and "EPR paradox". No cheating.

Macro-Entanglement between Patient, Practitioner and remedy (PPR)
Entanglement means non-local.

Remedy interacts with prover (human) to produce symptoms. Prover can not be removed from the relationship equation.They are entangled (linked) to each other.

analogy: in a modulated signal, message signal and carrier signal are entangled.

Entanglement ensures one will affect the other

Homeopath practitioner acts as the mirror of the patient with the aim of leading to/providing curative remedy for the patient.

what the hell am i reading? you are saying that homeopathic doctors are now some kind of voodoo/esp magician and is actually influencing the the patient irrespective to the 'medicine'?

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

Moridin wrote:Dr. Nancy Malik, please define, in your own words, the concept of "entanglement", "Semiotic", and "EPR paradox". No cheating.

Macro-Entanglement between Patient, Practitioner and remedy (PPR)
Entanglement means non-local.

Remedy interacts with prover (human) to produce symptoms. Prover can not be removed from the relationship equation.They are entangled (linked) to each other.

analogy: in a modulated signal, message signal and carrier signal are entangled.

Entanglement ensures one will affect the other

Homeopath practitioner acts as the mirror of the patient with the aim of leading to/providing curative remedy for the patient.

It is in need of a real cleanup, then.