Large study concludes Homeopathy does not effectively treat any health condition

a reply to: anticitizen

The more and more we learn about the world, the less and less magical beliefs are required to explain nature. I'm not exactly holding out for future scientific discoveries validating magic water. Cool appeal to ignorance fallacy, though.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: anticitizen

The more and more we learn about the world, the less and less magical beliefs are required to explain nature.

That's right, because with time the two merge together. Sometimes science disproves religion/magic and sometimes it will approve it.
We are only at the beginning of science.
Just don't dismiss anything that can't be proven by science. Science isn't all knowing and as a scientist i can tell you there have been many errors of science since it has been applied.

a reply to: anticitizen

It's not a matter of "will science ever explain homeopathy?".

We don't need to understand the mechanism behind it (magic, unicorn farts, whatever), we can easily demonstrate whether or not it actually works.

It doesn't, mechanism be damned.

So: not only is the explanation a bunch of magical hokum, it doesn't even work.

I decided to open the pdf on this paper that was published about how they came to this conclusion and I read almost all of it, at least 25 pages.

For once I would like to see an actual example of an experiment done on it. Give me specifics, please! They just say they did studies on these health conditions and this is what we found out. They don't explain how they found this out. How long it took, what they were given, what specific condition was treated, etc....

And I found it interesting how, if a study done came to a conclusion that homeopathy DID work as well as the conventional treatment or was BETTER than the conventional treatment, it was due to a "poor quality" study and was therefore discounted. They said this several times throughout all the pages I read. So their conclusions on the studies for homeopathy were always poor quality studies?

I don't know...That doesn't make me believe that homeopathy is total bunk.

originally posted by: texasgirl
I decided to open the pdf on this paper that was published about how they came to this conclusion and I read almost all of it, at least 25 pages.

For once I would like to see an actual example of an experiment done on it. Give me specifics, please! They just say they did studies on these health conditions and this is what we found out. They don't explain how they found this out. How long it took, what they were given, what specific condition was treated, etc....

It's all there clearly laid out. The citations takes you to the studies. The rest of the paper explains the evaluation methodology.

And I found it interesting how, if a study done came to a conclusion that homeopathy DID work as well as the conventional treatment or was BETTER than the conventional treatment, it was due to a "poor quality" study and was therefore discounted. They said this several times throughout all the pages I read. So their conclusions on the studies for homeopathy were always poor quality studies?

I don't know...That doesn't make me believe that homeopathy is total bunk.

Again, read the citations and the rest of the paper. It's all there. Crappy studies are published all of the time. It is trivial to reject them based on flawed methodology. It makes no sense to include a methodologically flawed study in a review for obvious reasons.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: texasgirl

I decided to open the pdf on this paper that was published about how they came to this conclusion and I read almost all of it, at least 25 pages.



For once I would like to see an actual example of an experiment done on it. Give me specifics, please! They just say they did studies on these health conditions and this is what we found out. They don't explain how they found this out. How long it took, what they were given, what specific condition was treated, etc....

It's all there clearly laid out. The citations takes you to the studies. The rest of the paper explains the evaluation methodology.

And I found it interesting how, if a study done came to a conclusion that homeopathy DID work as well as the conventional treatment or was BETTER than the conventional treatment, it was due to a "poor quality" study and was therefore discounted. They said this several times throughout all the pages I read. So their conclusions on the studies for homeopathy were always poor quality studies?



I don't know...That doesn't make me believe that homeopathy is total bunk.

Again, read the citations and the rest of the paper. It's all there. Crappy studies are published all of the time. It is trivial to reject them based on flawed methodology. It makes no sense to include a methodologically flawed study in a review for obvious reasons.

Maybe, but I find it suspicious that there were no 'poor quality' studies done on conventional medicine.

I believe in it because it has not just worked for me, but for my cats. I don't think it's mind over matter (placebo effect), especially if my cats think I'm trying to kill them every time I give them homeopathy. But it works for them.

I'm skeptical of the study, regardless.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: texasgirl

I decided to open the pdf on this paper that was published about how they came to this conclusion and I read almost all of it, at least 25 pages.



For once I would like to see an actual example of an experiment done on it. Give me specifics, please! They just say they did studies on these health conditions and this is what we found out. They don't explain how they found this out. How long it took, what they were given, what specific condition was treated, etc....

It's all there clearly laid out. The citations takes you to the studies. The rest of the paper explains the evaluation methodology.

And I found it interesting how, if a study done came to a conclusion that homeopathy DID work as well as the conventional treatment or was BETTER than the conventional treatment, it was due to a "poor quality" study and was therefore discounted. They said this several times throughout all the pages I read. So their conclusions on the studies for homeopathy were always poor quality studies?



I don't know...That doesn't make me believe that homeopathy is total bunk.

Again, read the citations and the rest of the paper. It's all there. Crappy studies are published all of the time. It is trivial to reject them based on flawed methodology. It makes no sense to include a methodologically flawed study in a review for obvious reasons.

Can you give me an example of a specific condition that was studied? How many people were in this study? What were they given? How long until they reviewed results? Any side effects reported on either side?

I didn't see that anywhere in the paper.

a reply to: texasgirl

Follow the references. They're cited right there in the text with context.

originally posted by: texasgirl
Maybe, but I find it suspicious that there were no 'poor quality' studies done on conventional medicine.

Because this is a study on homeopathy.

I believe in it because it has not just worked for me, but for my cats. I don't think it's mind over matter (placebo effect), especially if my cats think I'm trying to kill them every time I give them homeopathy. But it works for them.

Many people believe in faeries, astrology, guardian angels, etc. Believing doesn't make it so.

I'm skeptical of the study, regardless.

I'm skeptical of your intellectual honesty.

originally posted by: texasgirl

Maybe, but I find it suspicious that there were no 'poor quality' studies done on conventional medicine.

There are plenty of poor quality studies done on conventional medicine, but the thing is, when those are done the FDA gets EXTREMELY pissed at the pharmaceutical company doing them and levies huge fines, terminations, company shutdowns, and/or jail time for producing them. The reason I know this, is because these things have happened in the past to companies producing faulty studies.

I believe in it because it has not just worked for me, but for my cats. I don't think it's mind over matter (placebo effect), especially if my cats think I'm trying to kill them every time I give them homeopathy. But it works for them.

I'm skeptical of the study, regardless.

In other words, you are willing to believe your poorly sampled anecdotal evidence over concrete scientific analysis?

Why, yes...Because I have seen it work for me personally. And for my cats. That's evidence for me.

a reply to: texasgirl

It's evidence that the placebo effect and regression to the mean frequently lead people down the road of self-delusion.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: texasgirl



It's evidence that the placebo effect and regression to the mean frequently lead people down the road of self-delusion.

Sure. Tell that to my cats. But they're self-deluded, huh?

a reply to: texasgirl

Your cats can talk? Or are you projecting your own expectations on to them?

Magic water does not work. Not for humans, not for cats, not for anything (except dehydration).

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: texasgirl



Your cats can talk? Or are you projecting your own expectations on to them?



Magic water does not work. Not for humans, not for cats, not for anything (except dehydration).

Let me ask you something: If you tried something and it worked are you more likely to try it again? Say you tried it again with even more success. You are very pleasantly surprised. But then a study comes out saying it's pure bunk. Are you going to throw it away and believe the study, even though it worked for you?

Projecting onto cats? Hmm...Yeah, no.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: texasgirl



Your cats can talk? Or are you projecting your own expectations on to them?



Magic water does not work. Not for humans, not for cats, not for anything (except dehydration).

The bladder stone blockage was an emergency, a life-threatening situation. The Cantharis dissolved the stone in a matter of minutes. Do you think I had time to project onto my cat when he was in such pain?

Okay, I have to sign off. Gotta leave for work.

a reply to: texasgirl

We understand enough about the mind's capacity to self-delude and maintain internal logical consistency at the cost of external consistency that, if I were to eat some magic beans and felt magical effects, I would be far more inclined to accept the more plausible explanation of placebo/self-delusion than "magic water did magic on me".

Maybe they don't work because there isn't anything in them.

Herbal Supplements Without Herbs

www.nytimes.com...

An investigation of herbal supplements by the New York State attorney general’s office carries a sobering message for the rest of the nation as well.

The investigation looked at the store brands of well-known herbal products sold by four prominent national retailers: GNC, Target, Walgreens and Walmart. Among the popular products examined were ginkgo biloba, St. John’s wort and ginseng pills. Four out of five of the products tested did not include any of the herbs listed on their labels. Even worse, hidden ingredients and contaminants could be dangerous to people with allergies to those substances.

That such well-known brands should be found to be fraudulent suggests that the problem infects the entire industry.

FEBRUARY 3, 2015

The New York State attorney general’s office accused four major retailers on Monday of selling fraudulent and potentially dangerous herbal supplements and demanded that they remove the products from their shelves.
well.blogs.nytimes.com...
The authorities said they had conducted tests on top-selling store brands of herbal supplements at four national retailers — GNC, Target, Walgreens and Walmart — and found that four out of five of the products did not contain any of the herbs on their labels. The tests showed that pills labeled medicinal herbs often contained little more than cheap fillers like powdered rice, asparagus and houseplants, and in some cases substances that could be dangerous to those with allergies.

The investigation came as a welcome surprise to health experts who have long complained about the quality and safety of dietary supplements, which are exempt from the strict regulatory oversight applied to prescription drugs.

The Food and Drug Administration has targeted individual supplements found to contain dangerous ingredients. But the announcement Monday was the first time that a law enforcement agency had threatened the biggest retail and drugstore chains with legal action for selling what it said were deliberately misleading herbal products.

Among the attorney general’s findings was a popular store brand of ginseng pills at Walgreens, promoted for “physical endurance and vitality,” that contained only powdered garlic and rice. At Walmart, the authorities found that its ginkgo biloba, a Chinese plant promoted as a memory enhancer, contained little more than powdered radish, houseplants and wheat — despite a claim on the label that the product was wheat- and gluten-free.