This is why so many people believe in ghosts, spirits and the paranormal
-
I'm not going to go through a novel's worth of referencs, but anyway (these are not hand-picked, I just searched and clicked the first one each time)
http//www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/5/393.pdf - Most clinical trials are poor. Most report no effect over placebos. Some report positive effects - but "further rigorous research is needed".
http//www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/2/4 - 40% effectiveness
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=retrieve&dopt=abstract&list_uids=10853874 - "CONCLUSIONS There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results."
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&=&=&=&db=PubMed&list_uids=10796532&dopt=Abstract - "REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. As well as randomised trials, there is a need for observational data to document the different methods of homeopathic prescribing and how patients respond."
Here's a good one http//pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/5/719 - Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea With Homeopathic Medicine A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua - Conclusions. The statistically significant decrease in the duration of diarrhea in the treatment group suggests that homeopathic treatment might be useful in acute childhood diarrhea. Further study of this treatment deserves consideration.
http//www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x/full/?cookieSet=1 - "Collectively these data do not provide sound evidence that homeopathic remedies are clinically different from placebos. However, the present analysis has several limitations that should be kept in mind when interpreting its conclusions. Even though a thorough search strategy was adopted, there is no absolute guarantee that all relevant articles were located."
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9884175&dopt=Abstract - CONCLUSION The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies.
And another good one http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14960096&dopt=Citation - CONCLUSIONS Patients were very satisfied with their homeopathic treatment, both they and their physicians recorded significant improvement. Costs of homeopathic treatment were significantly lower than conventional treatment, and many previously prescribed drugs were discontinued.
-
I'm not going to go through a novel's worth of referencs, but anyway (these are not hand-picked, I just searched and clicked the first one each time)
http//www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/5/393.pdf - Most clinical trials are poor. Most report no effect over placebos. Some report positive effects - but "further rigorous research is needed".
Aw come on, OPF, Here's from the same article...
DOES HOMEOPATHY WORK?
The evidence for homeopathy?s effectiveness includes
three areas of research 1) general comparisons of homeopathic
remedies and placebos; 2) studies of homeopathy?s
effectiveness for particular clinical conditions; and 3) studies
looking for biological effects from potencies, especially
the Homeopathic Remedy More Effective than
Placebo?
Four comprehensive, independent systematic reviews
or meta-analyses have examined the question of whether
homeopathic therapies behave like placebo in randomized,
placebo-controlled trials (Table 2). These have comprehensively
searched for all clinical trials and have used standard
methods for quality evaluation and analysis of clinical
trials. These reviews have found that, overall, the quality of
clinical research in homeopathy is low. When only high quality
studies have been selected for analysis (such as those
with adequate randomization, blinding, sample size, and
other methodologic criteria that limit bias), a surprising
number show positive results. For example, Kleijnen and
colleagues (2 did a detailed quality evaluation of 60 homeopathic
clinical trials and concluded that they ?would
be ready to accept that homeopathy can be efficacious, if
only the mechanism of action were more plausible."homeopathy is more effective than placebo in general.CONCLUSIONS
Homeopathy is an alternative therapeutic system based
on the ?Principle of Similars? and the use of ?minimum?
doses. Homeopathy was a prominent component of 19th century
health care and recently has undergone a revival in
the United States and around the world. Despite skepticism
about the plausibility of homeopathy, some randomized,
placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report
unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines.
However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy
for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality,
and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic
medicine (61). More and better research is needed,
Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians
be open-minded about homeopathy?s possible value
and maintain communication with patients who use it.I'm not going to go through all of the articles, this conversation is getting plain fruity. You see what you want to see, and I know from experience what I know. I will not abandon my homeopathic practice, regardless of what you say. I know what I know to be true, whether or not I can 'prove' it to you, jonny, and Randi.
So, to take this thread back to the Glorious Reading, to you, your way of life, and to me mine. peace
Good day!
-
I don't doubt homeopathy. I just don't actually see how it could possibly work. Maybe it is actually a wonder drug, the FDA does suppress an aweful lot of things deeming them unscientific (cannabis plant, for instance).
-
I don't doubt homeopathy. I just don't actually see how it could possibly work. Maybe it is actually a wonder drug, the FDA does suppress an aweful lot of things deeming them unscientific (cannabis plant, for instance).
Ahh............ salve to my wounds. handshake
sun
-
Peace "Ilisa",
Ok so you showed the results. This is the first step but how do i know these results were done under proper control and/or not faked delberately or not properly controlled as was the case with Uri Geller at the Stanford Resreach Institution back in 1982? How would i know this? Ok wht i can do is send these results to JREF and see what they claim. GOD Bless! -
Peace "Ilisa",
I sent your results to the JREF and this is what Randi repliedYou have selected meta-analyses. These depend entirely on how the data is selected. And they are indicative, not proof.
We accept only original evidence.
James Randi.
GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Ilisa",
I sent your results to the JREF and this is what Randi replied
You have selected meta-analyses. These depend entirely on how the data is selected. And they are indicative, not proof.We accept only original evidence.
James Randi.
GOD Bless!Greetings jonny-k
Thanks! This is a step forward, at least now they are saying 'indicative'!!!
What do they mean by 'original evidence' ---that we have to do the research ourselves?? Or that we do something in front of them?
Seriously, there is a homepathic remedy that I have repeatedly seen make bumps from an accident go down in front of my eyes. If we could only find two volunteers....one to hit and the other to be hit somewhere (like the shin), we'll watch the bump start to come up, then I'll administer the remedy and we'll all watch it go down. Would that be 'original evidence' enough for the randi foundation?
I'm serious. No joking. Want to do it??
-
Greetings jonny-k
Thanks! This is a step forward, at least now they are saying 'indicative'!!!
What do they mean by 'original evidence' ---that we have to do the research ourselves?? Or that we do something in front of them?
Seriously, there is a homepathic remedy that I have repeatedly seen make bumps from an accident go down in front of my eyes. If we could only find two volunteers....one to hit and the other to be hit somewhere (like the shin), we'll watch the bump start to come up, then I'll administer the remedy and we'll all watch it go down. Would that be 'original evidence' enough for the randi foundation?
I'm serious. No joking. Want to do it??
Do you realise you would need around 100+ people of all different shapes, sizes, ages, races, etc to carry that out with a hint of credibility?
-
Do you realise you would need around 100+ people of all different shapes, sizes, ages, races, etc to carry that out with a hint of credibility?
Why 100 if we do it in front of their cameras? However, they can choose who the people are and the number of participants. I don't care. It doesn't matter.
We can, indeed it with all the participants of their choosing even. (Actually it would take 200 then...one to kick and one to be kicked. Or you could have some device hit them --whatever it would take to give them a 'goose-egg' in a relatively harmless spot.)
-
Peace "ilisa"
Seriously, there is a homepathic remedy that I have repeatedly seen make bumps from an accident go down in front of my eyes. If we could only find two volunteers....one to hit and the other to be hit somewhere (like the shin), we'll watch the bump start to come up, then I'll administer the remedy and we'll all watch it go down. Would that be 'original evidence' enough for the randi foundation?
I'm serious. No joking. Want to do it??
JK- Yes i think it would be but under controlled conditions meaning that the selected volunteers you choose would have to be agreed upon by Randi as well as you and some of the JREF members will see to it that the volunteers chosen are not magicians. Then there would also be scientists present there to watch the phenomena again which both you and Randi would agree upon. As for the eg you mentioned, do you mean that the bump would go down in a couple of minutes just before anyones eyes through your homeopathic remedy? If thts the case and itd be proven then Randi would surely provide you not only with million USD but youll be world famous amongst all skeptics. Would you like to write to the jref yourself (www.randi.org) or should i regarding this? GOD Bless!
-
Greetings jonny_k
You can watch it go down before your eyes in a matter of minutes. If you want, and we give the remedy immediately, no bump will form, but for the sake of proving a point, we could let the bump begin to form so that no one could tell us that the bump wasn't going to form any way.
What the heck, I'll write Randi.....but if I get the million, I'll give you a slice!! handshake
-
Greetings again jonny_k,
Just when it was starting to look like we were getting somewhere with this, I've just been to Randi's site and I was reading the terms for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge and I came up against this road block
"12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions First, he/she must have a ?media presence,? which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person?s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified."
I am not a 'media presence'. So, now what to do?
-
Why 100 if we do it in front of their cameras? However, they can choose who the people are and the number of participants. I don't care. It doesn't matter.
We can, indeed it with all the participants of their choosing even. (Actually it would take 200 then...one to kick and one to be kicked. Or you could have some device hit them --whatever it would take to give them a 'goose-egg' in a relatively harmless spot.)
What I mean is that you need a broad number of people for testing. Most medicine trials take a significant amount of people from everywhere, 100 was just a random number. It may work for one person, but not all.
-
Peace "Ilisa",
Greetings again jonny_k,
Just when it was starting to look like we were getting somewhere with this, I've just been to Randi's site and I was reading the terms for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge and I came up against this road block
"12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions First, he/she must have a ?media presence,? which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person?s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified."
I am not a 'media presence'. So, now what to do?
JK- Yeah i forgot to tell you that. Theyve changed the rules i beleive at the beginning of this year since too much people were applying without any significant results so Randi wanted to focus on the more famous people in order to expose them since theyr misleading many. But dont let that sacre you. Do write to the JREF and if they wont accept ask themwhether they have any smaller communities, related to them and whose testimonies they accept, in the US and whether you could perform ceratin preliminary tests thre first. once you pass those Randi will surely invite you to take the major test in his own presence. Good luck and GOD Bless! sun
-
.....I'm back. And this is what I got from JREF (Alison Smith to be exact)
Lisa Newlin,
Thank you for your interest in the James Randi Educational Foundation's Million Dollar Challenge.
We do not allow any testing protocols that involve injury or risk to the volunteers. There is simply no way to control exactly how injured someone gets when you try to bruise them.
I would not be surprised at all if Arnica Montana could reduce swelling in a patient. However, an herb is not the same thing as a homeopathic remedy. A homeopathic remedy is diluted to the point where you can honestly say that throwing seven molecules of the active ingredient in the ocean and then drinking some of the Pacific would be equally effective.
If you are saying that a homeopathic remedy of Arnica Montana would reduce swelling, then I suggest you come up with other viable ways of testing that and apply.
However, keep in mind that the testing is under time constraints. Whoever was using the remedy could not leave the sight of the testers after they had used it, and the amount of time we would ask volunteers to devote to the test would have to be reasonable.
Thank you again for your interest,
JREF Challenge Desk
Doesn't seem that their biggest concern is proving whether homeopathy truly works or not, but rather finding a way to offer the Million Dollar Challenge, but not really! P