Charlies dodgy influence strikes again

[Simon]

We're talking about way less than one molecule being present Simon, as the third paragraph indicates. The shaking's important too. It's the memory of the original substance that does the trick, they say.

Well, as I said, Am51, I'm struggling with that...

[Simon]

Or, indeed, sheer coincidence.

In many cases, the body will sort itself out on its own, but people may well attribute the cure to whatever treatment they have taken on the basis of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Only properly designed clinical trials can determine whether there is a causal link between the purported treatment and the cure.

The patient getting better without taking any effective treatment is, I suppose, another manifestation of regression towards the mean - a phenomenon that can make it appear that any action at all is efficacious unless it is accounted for.

Indeed. Can't fault all that, VC.

[Simon]

There is also evidence that placebos have a positive effect even if the patient knows they're taking a sugar pill.

Now that IS an interesting notion...

[Pabmusic]

Now that IS an interesting notion...

Yes, it's been observed more than once. It might just be part of the intrinsic bias that just knowing you're taking part in a trial can cause an improvement (it can be a problem in designing a trial to minimise this) but there is a suspicion that it might be a different phenomenon.

[Dave2002]

As for homeopathy - I haven't a clue if there is any good evidence for it or not. And I don't expect that I'll have the time to find out in the near future. But I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. There are a lot of things we don't understand in the world.

I agree that to a certain extent one ought to keep an open mind, but there are several reasons why one should dismiss homeopathy. One is that there is hardly any evidence that it works. Another is that the theories on which it is based are clearly fantastical.

Some of the ideas may have made sense a few centuries ago. For example, theories of immunisation were developed around the notion that being influenced by small amounts of seeming harmful substances could build up resistance in the body, and in some cases this has been shown to be true.

Even alchemy, in its time, may have led to discoveries, but now we have other ideas and theories, and older ideas should generally be discarded.

The point at which homeopathy becomes ludicrous is the point at which it becomes possible to determine that there is not even a single molecule of anything potent in a gallon of homeopathic fluid. Also the notions of atomic/molecular memory are I believe implausible for most who have any understanding of physics and chemistry. It is not wrong to think of unlikely or unusual ideas, but it is surely wrong to cling to them when they are investigated and found to have no validity, either evidential or theoretical.

[MrGongGong]

Well put Dave

[teamsaint]

That's because you are calling things 'statistics' when they are actually conclusions drawn from statistics in answer to two different questions. If the question is "what form of transport carries with it the lowest probability of a traveller experiencing an accident", then the answer is "air". If the question is "once an accident occurs, in which form of transport do you have the lowest chance of survival", the answer again is "air". It's not the facts (the statistics) that have changed, it's the question that's been asked.

Sorry Pab, you have lost me there.
The Wiki stats show that, per passenger mile deaths are lowest in air travel. By passenger journey air is far from the safest. Those are statistics, are they not? Perhaps I have misunderstood the term "statistics" .
The question of which form of transport is safest is open to interpretation, because two sets of figures show different results, for different types of journey.

[Pabmusic]

Sorry Pab, you have lost me there.
The Wiki stats show that, per passenger mile deaths are lowest in air travel. By passenger journey air is far from the safest. Those are statistics, are they not? Perhaps I have misunderstood the term "statistics" .
The question of which form of transport is safest is open to interpretation, because two sets of figures show different results, for different types of journey.

I'm being a bit picky, I know, but the point I'm trying to make is that the interpretation of statistics (or facts if you prefer) is dependent on the question being asked. Are we measuring safety in terms of deaths per passenger mile or by passenger journey? Or by another measure? The facts (the statistics, the data) remain the same, but the question changes. We must understand what question is being asked before we can make sense of the facts, because the facts are usually bewildering out of context.

It's very easy to dismiss statistics with throw-away line like "they can be made to mean whatever you want". No they can't as long as you understand the question being answered.

[teamsaint]

I'm being a bit picky, I know, but the point I'm trying to make is that the interpretation of statistics (or facts if you prefer) is dependent on the question being asked. Are we measuring safety in terms of deaths per passenger mile or by passenger journey? Or by another measure? The facts (the statistics, the data) remain the same, but the question changes. We must understand what question is being asked before we can make sense of the facts, because the facts are usually bewildering out of context.

It's very easy to dismiss statistics with throw-away line like "they can be made to mean whatever you want". No they can't as long as you understand the question being answered.

I think you are saying that there are questions before the creation of the data, and then in looking at the stats after they are created.
I am sure you agree that statistics can indeed be used to fit the argument, and that great care needs to be used, and caution employed when others are giving interpretations.
as I have said all along, and returning to homeopathy, if the statistics were to show that money spent on homepathy on the NHS resulted only , or mostly, in people returning for conventional treatment, then the homeopathy expenditure would be unjustifiable. And further the benefits really do need to be shown to justify the costs, in comparison to other treatments. However, I can't find anything online that clearly shows either of these two results.

[Simon]

I agree that to a certain extent one ought to keep an open mind, but there are several reasons why one should dismiss homeopathy. One is that there is hardly any evidence that it works. Another is that the theories on which it is based are clearly fantastical.

Dave - you let yourself down at the final hurdle!

No problem with: "One is that there is hardly any evidence that it works." If that's the case, then you're on sound, logical ground.

But "the theories on which it is based are clearly fantastical" doesn't cut the mustard. The idea that the earth went round the sun was, according to the accepted thinking of the day "clearly fantastical". There have been countless discoveries that, a few years before, were "clearly fantastical". I'm not saying that homeopathy does work, please understand. I'm just saying that because it appears to some of us as "fantastical" doesn't refute it in the slightest and should not be considered as remotely relevant to an objective discussion.

[Pabmusic]

Dave - you let yourself down at the final hurdle!

No problem with: "One is that there is hardly any evidence that it works." If that's the case, then you're on sound, logical ground.

But "the theories on which it is based are clearly fantastical" doesn't cut the mustard. The idea that the earth went round the sun was, according to the accepted thinking of the day "clearly fantastical". There have been countless discoveries that, a few years before, were "clearly fantastical". I'm not saying that homeopathy does work, please understand. I'm just saying that because it appears to some of us as "fantastical" doesn't refute it in the slightest and should not be considered as remotely relevant to an objective discussion.

Yes, Simon, I agree. Much safer would be to point out that nothing we know of science supports the principles of 'less is more' and 'molecular memory', and for it to be so we would have to abandon much that we do know about reality.

[MrGongGong]

But "the theories on which it is based are clearly fantastical" doesn't cut the mustard. The idea that the earth went round the sun was, according to the accepted thinking of the day "clearly fantastical". There have been countless discoveries that, a few years before, were "clearly fantastical". I'm not saying that homeopathy does work, please understand. I'm just saying that because it appears to some of us as "fantastical" doesn't refute it in the slightest and should not be considered as remotely relevant to an objective discussion.

I think you have been reading the homeofraud websites
homeopathy has been objectively proved not to work
there is the well documented placebo effect
but it's proponents try to connect lack of knowledge in one area to mean that there is a lack of knowledge in every area. Which simply isn't the case.

If one "dilutes" something so that there is NONE of the original substance in the "dilution" then there isn't any of the substance there, no matter what magic stick you use to bash it about. SO to sell something that has the name of something on even though there is none of it in the bottle is fraud plain and simple. If I sold you a 100% "beefburger" that turned out to be 100% la viande de cheval you would quite rightly be a little miffed !

"Faith Healers" do exactly what they say, they ask you to believe in something in the expectation that you will be healed, Homeopaths don't do this.

[scottycelt]

Presumably the grounds are similar to those used for treating heterosexual couples?

Well, at least the heterosexuals can claim to have tried and failed, hence the 'treatment'.

That cannot be said for the others.

Here you go scotty - it's taken til we've reached post #200 for you to ask, but I've had this ready & waiting

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/feb/13/prince-charity-lobbied-government-homeopathy

and some more from FoxNews (more your cuppa than the Guardian, I'm sure)

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10...es-letters-to/

Oh, you are an odd one, amsey, do ,please see #84 ...

The first quote is the original provided by Mr GG that we all already know about ,do we not, so why feature it again? It clearly mentions Prince Charles's 'charity' but it is very careful not to involve him personally ... haven't you noticed?

No, I never watch Fox Noos or regularly surf its website and I'm impressed at your sudden enthusiasm for the 'No Spin Zone'. It is an avowedly 'republican' station in both senses illustrated by it's one quote from a republican source in the UK. Not to be trusted, Ams!

Furthermore, any of this still doesn't tell us anything new regarding the details applicable to this subject of this thread . No proof has yet been provided that Prince Charles personally intervened in this particular case, and until it has, some of us shall continue to be cautious regarding the veracity or otherwise of any alleged personal intervention!

[amateur51]

Well, at least the heterosexuals can claim to have tried and failed, hence the 'treatment'.

That cannot be said for the others.




Oh, you are an odd one, amsey, do ,please see #84 ...

The first quote is the original provided by Mr GG that we all already know about ,do we not, so why feature it again? It clearly mentions Prince Charles's 'charity' but it is very careful not to involve him personally ... haven't you noticed?

No, I never watch Fox Noos or regularly surf its website and I'm impressed at your sudden enthusiasm for the 'No Spin Zone'. It is an avowedly 'republican' station in both senses illustrated by it's one quote from a republican source in the UK. Not to be trusted, Ams!

Furthermore, any of this still doesn't tell us anything new regarding the details applicable to this subject of this thread . No proof has yet been provided that Prince Charles personally intervened in this particular case, and until it has, some of us shall continue to be cautious regarding the veracity or otherwise of any alleged personal intervention!

Well this thread has been going on so long, scotty, a little repetition might be expected and in the Christian way of things, forgiven

What about the Daily Mail, scotty? Good enough for you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252745/Prince-Charles-backed-homeopathy-secret-talks-ministers.html

[Vile Consort]

If there were some evidence that homoeopathy worked (better than a placebo) then it would be worthwhile investigating the alleged memory effect. But there is no point anyone investigating an effect that probably isn't there.