Messages

I'd agree with this if homeopathy (as that is what we're talking about) had not already been tested under scientific conditions- repeatedly- and found wanting every single time.
How many times must something be tested by science before the results of that testing are accepted?
I would suggest that the billions of pounds being made every year by people selling this stuff is the reason for the denial of evidence..

Every single time? Really?

In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them homeopaths, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal (1) This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive.

The professors concluded, "The amount of positive results came as a surprise to us." Specifically, they found that:
--13 of 19 trials showed successful treatment of respiratory infections,
--6 of 7 trials showed positive results in treating other infections,
--5 of 7 trials showed improvement in diseases of the digestive system,
--5 of 5 showed successful treatment of hay fever,
--5 of 7 showed faster recovery after abdominal surgery,
--4 of 6 promoted healing in treating rheumatological disease,
--18 of 20 showed benefit in addressing pain or trauma,
--8 of 10 showed positive results in relieving mental or psychological
problems, and
--13 of 15 showed benefit from miscellaneous diagnoses.

A recent clinical trial evaluating homeopathic medicine was a unique study of the treatment of asthma(2). Researchers at the University of Glasgow used conventional allergy testing to discover which substances these asthma patients were most allergic to. Once this was determined, the subjects were randomized into treatment and placebo groups. Those patients chosen for treatment were given the 30c potency of the substance to which they were most allergic (the most common substance was house dust mite). The researchers called this unique method of individualizing remedies "homeopathic immunotherapy" (homeopathic medicines are usually prescribed based on the patient's idiosyncratic symptoms, not on laboratory analysis or diagnostic categories). Subjects in this experiment were evaluated by both homeopathic and conventional physicians.

This study showed that 82% of the patients given a homeopathic medicine improved, while only 38% of patients given a placebo experienced a similar degree of relief. When asked if they felt the patient received the homeopathic medicine or the placebo, both the patients and the doctors tended to guess correctly.

A study of the homeopathic treatment of migraine headache was conducted in Italy(3). Sixty patients were randomized and entered into a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients regularly filled out a questionnaire on the frequency, intensity, and characteristics of their head pain. They were prescribed a single dose of a 30c remedy at four separate times over two-week intervals. Eight remedies were considered, and prescribers were allowed to use any two with a patient. While only 17% of patients given a placebo experienced relief of their migraine pain, an impressive 93% of patients given an individualized homeopathic medicine experienced good results.


I could go on and on and on, and I too would like to ask the same question you did: "How many times must something be tested by science before the results of that testing are accepted?"

(1) J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.
(2) David Reilly, Morag Taylor, Neil Beattie, et al., "Is Evidence for Homoeopathy Reproducible?" Lancet, December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6.
(3) Bruno Brigo, and G. Serpelloni, "Homeopathic Treatment of Migraines: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Study of 60 Cases," Berlin Journal on Research in Homeopathy, March 1991, 1,2:98-106.

Scientists do not conspire to hide the secrets of the universe, they shout them as loudly as they can to anyone who will listen - makes for very dull parties, but there you go.

Absolutely - but accountants are not scientists and corporations are not scientists. As with most things in this day and age, he who pays the piper calls the tune and if the multinational you're doing science for isn't going to pay you to thoroughly investigate something like water memory then you're either going to have to investigate what you're told to investigate or do it on your own dime as an independent researcher with limited resources.

And we all know how society tends to view independent researchers who "shout ... as loudly as they can to anyone who will listen". Scientists are not paragons of virtue who will put their lives and careers on the line for something they don't have the resources to properly investigate - they're just people like you and me and if they get told not to do something enough times, most of them will comply. Science is a job as well as a vocation, so scientists go where the money is - which is generally in big corporations with an interest in maximising the profits of science, not the benefits of science.

Now, I'm not saying that science should accept every theory or hypothesis that's thrown at it, but it seems to me that good old fashioned skepticsm is in danger of being replaced entirely by pointless, automatic denial.

It'll be a sad day when we run out of mysteries...

Amen!

I seem to remember reading about "the hummadruz" in Fortean Times many years ago. IIrc, the phenomena was variously explained as UFOs, psychic shenanigans, the movement of the Earth's molten interior, the noise of the oceans reverberating through the planet's crust or the spin/motion of the Earth as it hurtles through space. All very intriguing, but I can't say I've ever heard it.

If it puts a stop to Coronation Street, though, it's fine by me!

"Every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic." Tim Minchin. Now, this I can agree with - so long as we accept that, so far, not every mystery has been solved.

'can't say whether water is capable of holding "memories" '

if it does we're all drinkling pish! not to mention every other thing that water has been in contact with  

Er, whereabouts does it say that water memory (if such a thing exists) lasts forever and can be neither erased nor re-set?  


Edit: Yes, absolutely - I can only speak from my opinion. And in my opinion, it's possible that water has a "memory" - it does, after all, "remember" how to be a solid, a liquid or a gas. (A spurious point, I know, but used here just to illustrate that the very word "memory" may not be exactly the correct one in the first place.)

Curiously Codex Alimentaris does not require that GM food should be labelled.Nothing untoward about that either.

You also fail to mention that it is voluntary and countries have no obligation to follow it.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/food/codex-alimentarius/

Everything is voluntary. Technically, every EU directive is voluntary because we as a nation have no say in which directives the EU issues. Our government simply volunteers to comply. Bombing Iraq is voluntary. Sending ground troops into Libya is voluntary.

Technically speaking, statute law in this country is also voluntary. There is no common law saying that you must pay a speeding fine, for example - any speeding ticket you get is merely a cleverly worded invitation to pay.

I'm not so sure:

Evidence disagrees with you, I'm afraid.

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=129

A quick Whois search reveals the owner of that web page to be David Colquhoun, who is behind the website Improbable Science and was the Hon. Director of the Wellcome Laboratory for Molecular Pharmacology which is owned by the Wellcome supermarket chain, one of the two largest supermarket chains in Hong Kong. There is no evidence on that page - only opinion. The phrase "pure pseudo-scientific gobblydegook" may sound impressive, but it is not backed up by evidence. Unfortunately, the evidence that disagrees with me is not evidence at all.

If you mean bottles of water that, they claim, contain the memory of something else, then I would say yes- they are absolutely on a hustle. They are fakes and con-men.

I'm not so sure:

"Recently, chemists have made the surprising discovery that molecules form clusters that increase in size with dilution. These clusters measure several micro-metres in diameter. The increase in size occurs nonlinearly with dilution and it depends on history, flying in the face of classical chemistry. Indeed, there is as yet no explanation for the phenomenon. It may well be another reflection of the strangeness of water that depends on its quantum properties.

"In the mid-1990s, quantum physicists Del Giudice and Preparata and other colleagues in University of Milan, in Italy, argued that quantum coherent domains measuring 100nm in diameter could arise in pure water. They show how the collective vibrations of the water molecules in the coherent domain eventually become phase-locked to the fluctuations of the global electromagnetic field. In this way, long-lasting, stable oscillations could be maintained in the water.

"One way in which 'memory' might be stored in water is through the excitation of long-lasting coherent oscillations specific to the substances in the homeopathic remedy dissolved in water. Interaction of water molecules with other molecules changes the collective structure of water, which would in turn determine the specific coherent oscillations that will develop. If these become stabilised and maintained by phase coupling between the global field and the excited molecules, then, even when the dissolved substances are diluted away, the water may still carry the coherent oscillations that can 'seed' other volumes of water on dilution." (1)

Of course, this is all Greek to me so I can't say whether water is capable of holding "memories" or not. I can't rule it out, though. If there wasn't something in homeopathy then people wouldn't use it. That something, of course, may be nothing more than a placebo effect or it may be something that modern science doesn't yet understand. I don't know - and to be frank, neither do you.

I'm a great fan of science, but it is not my religion. I say that because some of the responses I've had from science fans in the past (not here on this thread, I hasten to add) on trying to discuss things like homeopathy prompt knee-jerk dismissal and even anger. I find this very curious from a discipline that is supposed to look at things rationally. It's often like listening to some Evangelist screaming about Heaven and Hell.

As with the cancer treatments we've been discussing I think we need to keep open minds. Science should be investigating these claims thoroughly and if it turns out that hemp oil or B17 or sodium bicarbonate can cure cancers then we shouldn't let the accountants overrule the scientists as is happening now.

At the moment, humanity is such a stupid species. We have all this potential around us but instead of using our resources to investigate these things we'd rather squander them on profits or buying bombs to atomise Iraqis with. (Speaking of which, did you know that depleted uranium microparticles, which can cause cancers and birth defects if inhaled, have been found in the UK? (2) It's unclear whether these microparticles which are created when the DU rounds are fired have arrived on the wind from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya (etc) or from weapons testing at home. This is what we'd rather be spending our money on?)

Earlier on in this thread it was suggested that I think natural stuff is all good and artificial stuff is all bad. This is most certainly not the case. Science is, in my opinion, one of mankind's greatest achievements and most precious assets. My beef is that once the accountants get involved even the most useful of tools can become blunted or misapplied. Going back to pure nature is not the answer and neither is relying entirely on science. We need to use all our assets if we are to survive as a species, and if that means throwing our resources into thoroughly investigating the possibility that water has a memory then I'd rather do that than just assume that homeopathy must be bollocks simply because I can't understand how such a thing might work.




(1) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/water3.php
(2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article732523.ece

... this video was brought to my attention this morning of all times.I knew nothing of it previously and I have watched three quarters of it earlier today.

I am not commenting on its content or its claims so here it is and if you could try not to shoot the messenger[myself] and presume that by providing the link to it i am advocating anything then that would be appreciated.

The Great Cancer Hoax:

http://www.burzynskimovie.com/

Of course, one must always be careful with documentaries addressing such subjects (indeed, one must be careful of any documentary) but this one does seem to be honest and cites references throughout.

It does demonstrate how a cure for cancer would practically destroy the modern cancer treatment industry and bankrupt many drugs companies. There are conspiracies in the world otherwise the word conspiracy would not exist and films like this expose the naked greed which is behind most of them.

In years to come, I hope Dr Burzynski will be remembered in the same way that Christiaan Barnard or Ignaz Semmelweis are remembered today. The only horror is the millions of people who will suffer and die globally while the zealotry of conventional medicine prevails.

Thanks for posting that link, Peter. A thought-provoking and well made film that should be shown to every doctor and health minister.

Let's just hope that none of us ever has to test it.

When one thinks of all the plastics, metals, insecticides, hormones and Christ knows what else that surround us these days it's no wonder so many people are falling ill. When I was at primary school, I only remember one kid having asthma - now it seems like every other child has it.

Sativex Oromucosal Spray

QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE COMPOSITION
Each ml contains: 38-44 mg and 35-42 mg of two extracts (as soft extracts) from Cannabis sativa
L., folium cum flore (Cannabis leaf and flower) corresponding to 27 mg delta-
9-tetrahydrocannabinol and 25 mg cannabidiol.
Extraction solvent: Liquid carbon dioxide.


Each 100 microlitre spray contains:
2.7 mg delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and 2.5 mg cannabidiol (CBD).
Each 100 microlitre spray also contains up to 0.04 g alcohol.

List of excipients: Ethanol anhydrous, Propylene glycol, Peppermint oil.

And the cost?  3x10ml Vial = £480.00

Seems a tad expensive for what's in it.

Looks to me like an Australian Aborigine's head with a bandicoot sat on it. Or could it be the old figurehead off a sailing ship? It looks a little too "real" to be a simulacrum.

I was trawling through some photos of Antarctica (don't ask) when I came across this: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/19595355.jpg WtF?