LIFE UNDER CODEX - taking away supplements, then profiteering from supplements of lower value

[John]

LIFE UNDER CODEX

By Helke Ferrie

Vitality Magazine February 2005

It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen
from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to
keep the Government from falling into error.

Robert Houghwout Jackson, Chief Judge, War-Crimes Tribunal,
Nuremberg, 1945

If the following information were a horror movie, we could all
sit back with our popcorn and enjoy it. Unfortunately, this is
not fiction
- and if you don't do something about it, this nightmare will
become waking reality in Canada sometime soon after August
1. Whatever happens, you will never forget Codex
Alimentarius.

CODEX

Codex is a sub-committee of the United Nations mandated to
establish guidelines on food trade issues. Such guidelines are
not legally binding for any nation, but nations which are part
of the World Trade Organization can be severely sanctioned
anyway. In the early 1990's, Codex began to look at
establishing internationally "harmonized"standards for food
supplements. In 2002 a European Union Directive produced such
guidelines for Codex. It turns out, their effect will with
certainty be to stop the availability of all vitamins,
minerals, enzymes, and most other essential nutrients as food
supplements; they are slated to be treated as pharmaceutical
drugs, eventually available on prescription only and
manufactured by pharmaceutical companies from synthetic
materials, including from genetically engineered substances.

Due to interlocking international treaties, specifically the
WTO established in 1995, and the still to be ratified Free
Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), Canada and the US
would be faced with serious sanctions if they do not adopt
these guidelines. Codex authority is already part of these
treaty texts. Australia, Norway, Denmark and Germany have
already adopted these "foods as drugs" guidelines.

Health Canada's website already lists the European Parliament
Commission's "upper safe limits" on supplements as desirable
for Canadians to follow. Without parliamentary debate, Health
Canada snuck up on us and moved all supplements under the
"drug"category effective January 2004, in order to get us
ready to be "harmonized". This treachery prompted Bill C-420
(discussed below).

Consumer groups and various medical associations throughout
the world have joined forces with the "Alliance for Natural
Health", Europe's voice for the supplement industries to
challenge this Directive in the International Court in
Luxemburg as a violation of the EU Constitution. The 25 EU
member states differ widely in medical norms. Article 152 of
the EU Constitution expressly forbids any harmonization
regarding availability of medicinal and food substances
related to health. This provides a solid legal argument for
the case to be heard on January 25th. The decision will be
published in March. Because the biotech and pharmaceutical
industries dominate Codex and the EU food regulatory
authority, which wrote this Directive, the International
Court's decision will be decisive for either consumer freedom
of choice or the multi-national corporations.

LIFE UNDER CODEX

In the mid-1990's my mother, then in her 80's, had a stroke.
She lived in Germany. When she left hospital, I was ready with
a nutritional plan that included high-dose vitamins: C, E, and
B - especially Inositol, as well as Co-enzyme Q 10. I went to
the pharmacy, whose owner was a family friend for some 25
years, and handed him my list.

Hew gave me a small packet with a price sticker of DM 200
(then about $
200) containing vitamin E capsules manufactured by one of
Germany's largest pharmaceutical companies. The source
was synthetic, not the "mixed" version from living plant
sources I wanted which contains the whole E spectrum.
The package contained a total of 10,000 international
units of E, the equivalent of a mere 25 capsules of 400
IU each that we are used to buying (I take that many in
3 days). Our bottles contain 90 capsules and cost about
$ 20. If Codex rules in Canada, we will likely pay $ 800
for a bottle of 90 capsules of low-quality vitamin E -
if Health Canada lets us buy that many at once, and if
you can find a doctor willing to prescribe it.

He then handed me a tube-shaped metal container with vitamin C
effervescent tablets. Each tablet , when dissolved in water
would release 10 mg of vitamin C in a refined sugar solution.
Thus, this ridiculously low amount, was to be taken in a toxic
medium that would neutralize the vitamin without it doing
anything at all. The cost: about $ 10 for 12 tablets.

Then he asked me, "What's Co-enzyme Q 10? Are you allowed to
buy all this in Canada in such dangerous dosages?" When I told
him what I take daily, his eyes popped. Then I asked, "Why
can't I buy these supplements here?" He replied, "Well,
Germany is a Codex country." Oddly, Germany has several
government-run hospitals where environmental illness is
treated with nutrients only, intravenous vitamin C etc. Life
is full of paradoxes and few more follow below.

CODEX AND THE EU

Dr. Carolyn Dean, a medical doctor and naturopath well known
to Toronto readers, is currently the president of "Friends
of Freedom International" in which capacity she attended
the Codex meeting in Bonn last November. She describes
Codex as "the ultimate Big Brother marching backwards into
the future."

Effective August 1, all vitamin and mineral supplements on the
so-called "positive list", including everything from Beta
Carotene to Zinc, will only be available in the 25 EU
countries if they comply with specific rules set out in the
June 10, 2002, EU Directive Relating to Food Supplements. All
products must show maximum safe levels "as established by
science". Those nutrients found in the mythic "balanced diet"
are to be subtracted from the final values, and Article 6 (2)
decrees that labels shall "not attribute to food supplements
the property of preventing, treating or curing a human
disease, or refer to such properties." So, the Directive's
"science" knows nothing of Vitamin C preventing and curing
scurvy, Vitamin D preventing and curing rickets and
osteoporosis, or vitamin B curing and preventing anemia. It
also ignores the mountain of evidence showing our diets are
chronically deficient in essential nutrients because of
factory-style farming practices. To "ensure a high level of
protection for consumers and facilitate their choice", they
even included baking soda and table salt. We must assume they
will be unavailable as of August 1 anywhere in Europe - with
interesting consequences for the tourist industry in the baked
goods paradises Austria, Switzerland and France.

Now, there is also a "negative list" covering essential fatty
acids, phytonutrients, all the enzymes and more. Those cannot
be marketed at all, until the EU scientific committee in
charge has made a final decision. So, forget omega-3 and
omega-6 fats, cod liver oil, and much more. The effect of this
directive will be that thousands of products and businesses
will be gone this year. In the UK alone some 21 million people
will suddenly have no access to any supplement vitamins,
minerals, enzymes, fatty acids and more. Since the onus is on
businesses to produce the scientific information on safety,
they can't produce or sell anything - not even to physicians
who have the power to prescribe any toxic drug as well as any
essential nutrient. Obviously, there will be ludicrous
enforcement issues: Picture basement-concocted vitamins sold
in dark alleys alongside crack and Ecstasy.

TOBACCO SCIENCE

Health Canada's famous food safety activist, Dr. Shiv Chopra,
refers to corporate-generated pseudo-science (designed to look
snazzy but being in fact sleazy) as "tobacco science", which
is what obviously informed the Directive. For example, the
misleadingly named "International Alliance of Dietary
Supplements" (see iadsa-exposed.tripod.com ) has already
started the process of establishing "safety limits" for
supplements by providing Codex with a report: it is based on
outdated secondary literature, cites no evidence of dead
bodies from vitamin overdosing, asserts nonetheless that we
are all overdosing, and it is produced by a "scientific"
committee chaired by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer's very own
Randy Dennin.

Nutrients are essential to life and cannot be subjected to
safety analyses like environmental toxins or synthetic drugs.
Virtually all research published in mainstream journals is
focused on how essential nutrients heal organisms on the
cellular level, which nutrients act together to bring about
organ repair, and how they cause systemic healing when given
in very high doses. Science has known for at least a century
that deficiencies cause standard diseases. In the presence of
certain viruses and environmental toxins, such deficiencies
are major contributing factor to AIDS and all cancers. Indeed,
the South Africans recently renamed AIDS to NAIDS which stands
for "Nutritionally Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome"
because recent research showed that for the HIV virus to cause
illness, a person must also be deficient in the
immune-system-controlling mineral Selenium (Foster
2004).

Toxicity studies basically don't exist for essential nutrients
(one of a few is vitamin A under certain circumstances). To
establish the "lethal dose 50", half of a hundred lab rats or
mice dies at a substance's concentration which is then
designated as the toxic level. Well, you can't do that with
Vitamin C or essential fatty acids, for example. They can't
kill. The body metabolizes these substances and excretes
excesses. The occasional individual allergy to a specific type
of vitamin does not invalidate general biocompatibility.
Meeting the August 1 deadline is impossible in principle and
in practice. It is a trap.

By contrast, all synthetic drugs without exception are
systemically toxic, meaning they are toxic to more than one
body system as well as on a cellular level . Hence the
constant need to weigh the benefits of their use with the
known risks of their toxicity, specific doses of just so
many mg, timing of ingestion, duration of treatment - and
the prescription requirement. All this doesn't apply to
apples, magnesium or probiotics. If you eat too many apples,
you get the runs
- same mess for too much vitamin C. Furthermore, all drugs,
from Aspirin to Zocor, also deplete essential nutrients.
Most accumulate in body tissues because they cannot be
metabolized by our enzymes which freak out when encountering
this phony chemistry and simply move on. Used for a long
time, drugs frequently shut down the body's natural
detoxification center, the liver, and in extreme cases
destroy it - necessitating a liver transplant. Of course,
essential nutrients are readily metabolized and distributed
in accordance with the laws of nature, while simultaneously
nourishing the liver.

RESISTANCE

About 800,000 people die every year in North America from
properly prescribed and ingested drugs. No toxicity levels are
ever published on drugs. They are assumed and were protected
by a conspiracy of silence until Johns Hopkins Medical School
published the data on this carnage in 2003 (see Dean below).
Codex's effort to save us all from supposedly dangerous food
supplements, by requiring their (non-existent) toxicity
levels, is a determined backlash against the turn medical
science took starting with Linus Pauling, Abram Hoffer, Carl
Pfeiffer and Roger Williams in the 1950's. They established
the concepts of bio-individuality in absorption and
detoxification, high-dose essential nutrients as disease
curing, and environmental toxins acting as nutrient depleting.
Today, we have a flood of evidence showing that drugs have a
very limited usefulness and that high-dose nutrients can do
anything better than drugs can.

The pharmaceutical industry is anything but slow-witted, and
good business practice dictates outfoxing the competition -
one way or another - to secure the market. If this Directive
is not stopped, there will be only one medical world: the
pharmaceutical world. When this Codex project began in 2001,
some 180 million protest letters reached their office, but
Codex doesn't give up on protecting us. Now the fight is on in
each country, because Codex is now our problem as well.

South Africa announced on January 17th that it will not follow
the foods-as-drugs Directive. Minister of Health Manto
Tshabalala-Msimang stated her country disagrees with the
"false dichotomy between natural and allopathic medicine, a
division fostered by the need to make money from patented
drugs through discrediting the use of natural products." At
the November Codex meeting the South African delegate, Dr.
Anthony Rees (a naturopath and medical doctor) stood firm on
rejecting the Directive's notion that supplements don't treat
, prevent or cure, but the Codex chairman, who is routinely
supported by the EU delegate commanding 25 votes, simply
stonewalled all opposition, even the World Health
Organization's report entitled Diet, Nutrition and the
Prevention of Chronic Disease. Since chronic disease is the
source of Big Pharma's wealth (see my book), the last thing
Codex wants is prevention.

Ds. Dean described how India's delegate, who represents one
third of the human race with one vote, objected to the
Codex and EU-promoted baby formulas containing chemicals
that cause brain-destroying inflammation in susceptible
babies. He was ignored. When he insisted on debate, he was
removed from the room. Naturally, India is mounting its
resistance to Codex, the EU Directive, the WTO and all the
rest of the regulatory alphabet soup.

Despite Bush the Bizarre in the White House, the US has bill
H.R. 4004 before Congress, sponsored by Republican Congressman
Ron Paul from Texas. Known as the Health Freedom Bill, it is
an anti-Codex, anti-harmonization bill that would ensure
supplements to remain foods available according to individual
choice. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
expressed their opposition to Codex by formally adopting on
December 10th last year a resolution "supporting freedom for
patients and physicians to choose natural remedies". The
Dietary Supplement Education Alliance presented recently
before Congress an extensive analysis of the effect of
supplements taken on the basis of individual choice. Their
data showed that supporting such health freedom would save the
government a minimum of US 15 billion annually. Doctors'
associations also prepared a superb rebuttal to the reports
Codex relies on. One of the most important tools is available
for free to the health activist on www.garynull.com where you
can download the entire available mainstream scientific
information on all vitamins and minerals up to 2003. This
material was assembled with Dr. Carolyn Dean's assistance
specifically to counteract Codex's tobacco science.

In the UK, physicians practicing natural medicine have been
equally active. They are supported by many members of the
House of Lords and the Royal Family who subscribe to
homeopathy. Tony Blair's pro-Codex policy was attacked
publicly by his wife's personal trainer, who supervises the
Blairs' supplement regime; she accused the Blairs of hypocrisy
and urged Britons not to vote for him.

In Canada we have an utterly unique opportunity to save
freedom of choice by supporting Bill C-420 which is going into
second reading in Parliament in early March. By that time MPs
Dr. James Lunney and Dr. Colin Carrie need to show the
government that their bill is supported by Canadians - just as
we did a few years ago with more than a million letters. At
that time, Health Canada was poised to place all 60,000
natural products into the drug category. This immense protest
resulted in a promise to establish a "third category". Without
debate or public knowledge , all natural products were simply
moved into the drug category January 1, 2004. Outraged by this
treachery, MP Dr.J. Lunney launched bill C-420 which would
change the definition of food and drugs such as to achieve
what that publicly supported "third category" would have done.
Now we have a minority government and a chance to win. The
simple fact is that if our supplements are defined, in law, as
foods, Codex has no jurisdiction.

So, what can you do?

First: Go to my website www.kospublishing.com, scroll down to
Make A Difference , go to "CODEX Action Canada". A letter for
our Minister of Health and detailed instructions are provided,
with the addresses and e-mails of the relevant MPs. You may
write your own letter, of course. For a hard copy
519-927-1049. It demands (summary below):

1. Support Bill C -420, which is coming up for second
reading in March.
2. Take the necessary steps to implement the CAUT
recommendations by Canada's university teachers (i.e. stop
Health Canada from doing Big Pharma's bidding).
3. Initiate a "Truth Commission" composed of medical,
toxicology, and research experts with no ties to the
pharmaceutical industry, charged to investigate the
validity and reliability of the research of every drug
in the current Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and
Specialties (CPS)
4. Amend the regulatory requirements of Health Canada such
that, beginning with the 2005 edition of the CPS, every
drug therein must show its toxicity level in addition to
potential adverse effects.
5. Support the Minister's call for compulsory adverse event
reports on drugs.

Second: Become a member for $ 25 annually of Friends of
Freedom International. Download membership form and
information on Bill C-420 from my website, or call me for a
hard copy. They handle the most important current legal
actions against Health Canada.

If everyone of the 50,000 readers of this article were to act
now, Canadians would ensure their right to freedom of choice
in medicine. In a minority-government, Bill C-420 is certain
to pass with public support, and the pending law suits against
Health Canada's high-handed attack on vitamin and supplements
could be won. Instead of having your (tax) money support the
pharmaceutical industry, this would be certain support for
Life and Health.

Sources:

On Codex and the EU Directive : www.friendsoffreedom.org and
www.alliance-natural-health.org. For international treaties
affecting supplements www.citizen.org

M. Angell, The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They
Deceive us And What To Do About It, Random House, 2004
N. Bakan, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit
and Power, Viking, 2004
O. Ferrie, Dispatches from the War Zone of Environmental
Health, Kos 2004
P. Foster, What Really Causes AIDS, Trafford 2002
Q. & H. Hickey, MDs, The Ridiculous Dietary Allowance (type
LULU into GOOGLE and download free edition of this book)
R. Rampton & J. Stauber, Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry
Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future,
Tarcher-Putnam, 2001

[Jeff]

Codex requires real standards about the safety and purity of
supplements.

Why are the herb and vitamin makers afraid of this?

You can learn more about the program here:
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

Jeff

[David Wrig]

In article <cudf55$2i1$1@hercules.btinternet.com>, john
<nospamoridiotss@vaccine.con> wrote:

Most of this isn't worth commenting on, but here's a bit:

>Toxicity studies basically don't exist for essential
>nutrients (one of a few is vitamin A under certain
>circumstances). To establish the "lethal dose 50", half of a
>hundred lab rats or mice dies at a substance's concentration
>which is then designated as the toxic level.

Other nutrients, like B3 (niacin) or B6 are also toxic at high
enough doses. They may not kill you, but that doesn't mean
they are harmless, despite the blatherings of the author. And
minerals, well, now they really can do you a mischief. Unlike
vitamins, the toxicity level for minerals is not a zillion
times the RDA.

>By contrast, all synthetic drugs without exception are
>systemically toxic, meaning they are toxic to more than one
>body system as well as on a cellular level.

Yeah, just like most anything else. Whoopee.

<remaining blither and bogus statistics deleted>

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have
not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

[Alf Christ]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:50:55 GMT, wright@clam.prodigy.net
(David Wright) wrote:

>now they really can do you a mischief. Unlike vitamins, the
>toxicity level for minerals is not a zillion times the RDA.

Iron has about the lowest range from RDA to deadly toxic
amounts.While a wellknown toxic agent like selenium has one of
the highest ranges from RDA till acute deadly toxic dose.On
the other side, chronic toxic effects of course show up at a
much lower dose, but still far higher than the ration for
iron. (about 200, while iron is around 10)

[Juhana Har]

Jeff wrote:
:: Codex requires real standards about the safety and purity
:: of supplements.
::
:: Why are the herb and vitamin makers afraid of this?
::
:: You can learn more about the program here:
:: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

I am not involved in sales of any products but I know that it
is very costly to get any product through that kind of
process. It happens that even if a product is good and safe it
can't be brought to market because of the high costs involved.

--
Juhana

[John Sanke]

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Lunney's Natural Health Product Initiative Goes to Committee

OTTAWA-Dr. James Lunney, MP for Nanaimo-Alberni, congratulated
all Members in the House of Commons for passing the second
reading of Private Member's Bill C-420, which he originally
introduced in the last session of Parliament. "The election
interrupted progress on this bill, and I'm delighted to see it
move forward this time around. Greater freedom of choice in
personal health care is one step closer to becoming a
reality," said Lunney.

Bill C-420, reintroduced in this Parliament by Lunney's
colleague Dr. Colin Carrie, MP for Oshawa, would amend the
definition of food in the Food and Drugs Act to include
Natural Health Products, and amend the definition of drug to
exclude food. "Most Canadians are shocked to learn that
vitamins, minerals and other food products are drugs under
Canadian law, and that any product can be reclassified as a
drug just by making a claim that it has health benefits," said
Lunney. "That is out of touch with modern science, and out of
touch with the needs of Canadians."

The bill would also repeal antiquated clauses in the Act that
prohibit claims of any kind on a list of diseases that
include diabetes, heart disease and cancer. The move was
originally recommended in 2000 by a team of seventeen experts
appointed by the government to bring in new rules for Natural
Health Products.

"These clauses have been used for years to take effective
products, even those with the most scientific evidence behind
them, off the market without evidence of harm," said Lunney.
"The government has refused to listen to its own experts, who
say these clauses do not reflect the prevailing science. It is
time that our law caught up with science."

The bill will now go to the Standing Committee on Health,
where it will be examined and possibly modified before coming
back to the House. Lunney said the bill is a major step in the
right direction for health care reform.

"Bill C-420 is about releasing the tremendous amount of
information that supports the judicious use of natural health
products, and it's about greater freedom of choice in personal
health care. With a minority government, we have the
opportunity to advance effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in
health care," concluded Lunney.

For further information please contact:
Dr. James Lunney - (613) 992-5243 or (250) 390-7550

[Laurie Bra]

Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the
money. The pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk
using herbs, essential oils, homopathy and the like. They
don't like their profit margin cut in to. Laurie

In article <39nhprF64gvrgU1@individual.net>, "Juhana Harju"
<shantigiri@despammed.com> wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
> :: Codex requires real standards about the safety and purity
> :: of supplements.
> ::
> :: Why are the herb and vitamin makers afraid of this?
> ::
> :: You can learn more about the program here:
> :: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp
>
> I am not involved in sales of any products but I know that
> it is very costly to get any product through that kind of
> process. It happens that even if a product is good and safe
> it can't be brought to market because of the high costs
> involved.

[Jeff]

"Laurie Brandt" <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote in message
news:laurie-0904051004460001@localhost...
> Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow
> the money. The pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by
> folk using herbs, essential oils, homopathy and the like.
> They don't like their profit margin cut in to.

Actually, some pharmacuetical companies also make vitamins and
other supplements.

However, these supplemements don't really compete with real
medicine, because they don't do much.

Jeff

> Laurie
>
> In article <39nhprF64gvrgU1@individual.net>, "Juhana Harju"
> <shantigiri@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>> Jeff wrote:
>> :: Codex requires real standards about the safety and
>> :: purity of supplements.
>> ::
>> :: Why are the herb and vitamin makers afraid of this?
>> ::
>> :: You can learn more about the program here:
>> :: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp
>>
>> I am not involved in sales of any products but I know that
>> it is very costly to get any product through that kind of
>> process. It happens that even if a product is good and safe
>> it can't be brought to market because of the high costs
>> involved.

[David Wrig]

In article <laurie-0904051004460001@localhost>, Laurie Brandt
<laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote:
>Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the
>money. The pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk
>using herbs, essential oils, homopathy and the like. They
>don't like their profit margin cut in to.

Oh, horse manure. If there's a ton of money to be made in
herbs, the big pharma companies will just buy up the small
ones, or force them out of business. In fact, I'd be quite
surprised if they weren't already in that business. They're
already firmly in the vitamin business.

(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling
high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for
either water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending on the
nature of the remedy.)

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff
loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of
the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that
conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)

>Laurie
>
>In article <39nhprF64gvrgU1@individual.net>, "Juhana Harju"
><shantigiri@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>> Jeff wrote:
>> :: Codex requires real standards about the safety and
>> :: purity of supplements.
>> ::
>> :: Why are the herb and vitamin makers afraid of this?
>> ::
>> :: You can learn more about the program here:
>> :: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp
>>
>> I am not involved in sales of any products but I know that
>> it is very costly to get any product through that kind of
>> process. It happens that even if a product is good and safe
>> it can't be brought to market because of the high costs
>> involved.

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:12:22 GMT, "Jeff"
<kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Laurie Brandt" <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote in message
>news:laurie-0904051004460001@localhost...
>> Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow
>> the money. The pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by
>> folk using herbs, essential oils, homopathy and the like.
>> They don't like their profit margin cut in to.
>
>Actually, some pharmacuetical companies also make vitamins
>and other supplements.

Indeed. They also have gotten into the botanical industry.

>However, these supplemements don't really compete with real
>medicine, because they don't do much.

LOL. That's a silly statement. Roche wouldn't have been caught
in a price-fixing scam if "dietary supplements" didn't do
much. It's such a silly statement, it makes you sound like a
pharmaceutical industry lobbyist.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:39:16 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
(David Wright) wrote:

>In article <laurie-0904051004460001@localhost>, Laurie Brandt
><laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote:
>>Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow
>>the money. The pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by
>>folk using herbs, essential oils, homopathy and the like.
>>They don't like their profit margin cut in to.
>
>Oh, horse manure. If there's a ton of money to be made in
>herbs, the big pharma companies will just buy up the small
>ones, or force them out of business.

Indeed, they have tried to do this. And there is a good deal
of money to be made in botanical medicine.

But you can't patent a botanical as readily as a drug. And if
there is a competition between a drug, like a statin, say, and
other interventions which cannot be patented, the profit
margin falls dramatically. And then there is genuine
capitalist competition in the market place, rather than the
distorted perversion of intellectual property rights that the
pharmaceutical industry hides behind to justify price gouging,
which results in destabilizing the dismal health care access
in the United States causing massive suffering and death.

Globally, the industry feels IP rights trump human life and
have worked assiduously to block access to generic HIV
medications and treaments for opportunitistic infections,
resulting in literally MILLIONS of unnecessary deaths of men,
women and children.

>In fact, I'd be quite surprised if they weren't already in
>that business. They're already firmly in the vitamin
>business.

They are.

>(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling
>high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for
>either water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending on the
>nature of the remedy.)

Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your
statement. I have no strong opinion one way or the other on
the system of homeopathy.

George M. Carter

[Jeff]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mmsh511ml7ho1i1fd65kn2aa9e61792mbr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:12:22 GMT, "Jeff"
> <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Laurie Brandt" <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote in
>>message news:laurie-0904051004460001@localhost...
>>> Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow
>>> the money. The pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by
>>> folk using herbs, essential oils, homopathy and the like.
>>> They don't like their profit margin cut in to.
>>
>>Actually, some pharmacuetical companies also make vitamins
>>and other supplements.
>
> Indeed. They also have gotten into the botanical industry.
>
>>However, these supplemements don't really compete with real
>>medicine, because they don't do much.
>
> LOL. That's a silly statement. Roche wouldn't have been
> caught in a price-fixing scam if "dietary supplements"
> didn't do much. It's such a silly statement, it makes you
> sound like a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist.

You're correct. I should have been clearer. Supplements do
not do much to help people. I mean they don't cure disease
or anything.

They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines.

And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like.

Jeff

> George M. Carter

[David Wrig]

In article <hpsh515v7r5dm1s2iau5pf0g0tm7i5ahm0@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:39:16 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>(David Wright) wrote:
>
>>In article <laurie-0904051004460001@localhost>, Laurie
>>Brandt <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote:
>>>Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow
>>>the money. The pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by
>>>folk using herbs, essential oils, homopathy and the like.
>>>They don't like their profit margin cut in to.
>>
>>Oh, horse manure. If there's a ton of money to be made in
>>herbs, the big pharma companies will just buy up the small
>>ones, or force them out of business.
>
>Indeed, they have tried to do this. And there is a good deal
>of money to be made in botanical medicine.
>
>But you can't patent a botanical as readily as a drug. And if
>there is a competition between a drug, like a statin, say,
>and other interventions which cannot be patented, the profit
>margin falls dramatically.

And yet -- there are generic drug companies that are doing
just fine. And even big pharma makes vitamins. It's almost
enough to make one think there's money in it.

>And then there is genuine capitalist competition in the
>market place, rather than the distorted perversion of
>intellectual property rights that the pharmaceutical industry
>hides behind to justify price gouging, which results in
>destabilizing the dismal health care access in the United
>States causing massive suffering and death.

You'll have a harder time making that one stick. It's
certainly true in the case of some persons, no question, but
since only about 10% of health care dollars go to prescription
costs, even if you cut that to zero, things are still going to
be expensive and the system is still broken.

>Globally, the industry feels IP rights trump human life and
>have worked assiduously to block access to generic HIV
>medications and treaments for opportunitistic infections,
>resulting in literally MILLIONS of unnecessary deaths of men,
>women and children.

Well, it's kind of a difficult thing for a capitalistic
company, isn't it? I mean, if you give everything away, how do
you stay in business.

This is not to say I'm a big fan of big pharma, who still
have a preposterously high return on equity. I just don't
demonize them.

>>(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling
>>high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for
>>either water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending on the
>>nature of the remedy.)
>
>Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your
>statement.

And most of it doesn't. In fact, the whole question of how you
distinguish between a homeopathic remedy and a placebo is an
interesting one.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff
loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of
the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that
conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)

[Gmcarter]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:42:18 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
(David Wright) wrote:

>In article <hpsh515v7r5dm1s2iau5pf0g0tm7i5ahm0@4ax.com>,
>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:39:16 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>>(David Wright) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <laurie-0904051004460001@localhost>, Laurie
>>>Brandt <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote:
>>>>Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow
>>>>the money. The pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by
>>>>folk using herbs, essential oils, homopathy and the like.
>>>>They don't like their profit margin cut in to.
>>>
>>>Oh, horse manure. If there's a ton of money to be made in
>>>herbs, the big pharma companies will just buy up the small
>>>ones, or force them out of business.
>>
>>Indeed, they have tried to do this. And there is a good deal
>>of money to be made in botanical medicine.
>>
>>But you can't patent a botanical as readily as a drug. And
>>if there is a competition between a drug, like a statin,
>>say, and other interventions which cannot be patented, the
>>profit margin falls dramatically.
>
>And yet -- there are generic drug companies that are doing
>just fine. And even big pharma makes vitamins. It's almost
>enough to make one think there's money in it.

Yes, indeed there is. And where there's money, there's
potential for corruption, no doubt.

But the BIG difference is that where generics are available,
the original drug is off-patent and thus there is COMPETITION.
So there isn't the same degree of outrageous price gouging
that pharma now uses, hiding behind IP as a slim justification
for destroying the US healthcare system.

>>And then there is genuine capitalist competition in the
>>market place, rather than the distorted perversion of
>>intellectual property rights that the pharmaceutical
>>industry hides behind to justify price gouging, which
>>results in destabilizing the dismal health care access in
>>the United States causing massive suffering and death.
>
>You'll have a harder time making that one stick. It's
>certainly true in the case of some persons, no question, but
>since only about 10% of health care dollars go to
>prescription costs, even if you cut that to zero, things are
>still going to be expensive and the system is still broken.

Where did you get the 10% figure? But I agree that
prescription drug costs are only a part of the issue. Drugs,
diagnostics and devices all play a role, as well as hospital
fees, etc.

>>Globally, the industry feels IP rights trump human life and
>>have worked assiduously to block access to generic HIV
>>medications and treaments for opportunitistic infections,
>>resulting in literally MILLIONS of unnecessary deaths of
>>men, women and children.
>
>Well, it's kind of a difficult thing for a capitalistic
>company, isn't it? I mean, if you give everything away, how
>do you stay in business.

LOL. PHARMA isn't capitalism which is rooted in notions of
competition and open markets, yes? Pharma is selected products
upon which peoples' lives depend, and upon which they exert
monopolistic control.

>This is not to say I'm a big fan of big pharma, who still
>have a preposterously high return on equity. I just don't
>demonize them.

I do. I've watched friends die waiting for drugs that pharma
had worked so assiduously to prevent them from accessing.

>>>(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone
>>>selling high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big
>>>bucks for either water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending
>>>on the nature of the remedy.)
>>
>>Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your
>>statement.
>
>And most of it doesn't.

So you claim. I take it you've read all the extant studies? Or
can you point to a meta-analysis? (Please don't bother with
Stephen Barrett; he is completely discredited as far as I'm
concerned as a knee-jerk bigot.)

>In fact, the whole question of how you distinguish between a
>homeopathic remedy and a placebo is an interesting one.

Yep! Absolultely. Lots of fascinating questions regarding
health, etc. embedded in that, not to mention the physics of
water molecules.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:15:24 GMT, "Jeff"
<kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:mmsh511ml7ho1i1fd65kn2aa9e61792mbr@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:12:22 GMT, "Jeff"
>> <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Laurie Brandt" <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote in
>>>message news:laurie-0904051004460001@localhost...
>>>> Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow
>>>> the money. The pharmisutical industry is beint cut into
>>>> by folk using herbs, essential oils, homopathy and the
>>>> like. They don't like their profit margin cut in to.
>>>
>>>Actually, some pharmacuetical companies also make vitamins
>>>and other supplements.
>>
>> Indeed. They also have gotten into the botanical industry.
>>
>>>However, these supplemements don't really compete with real
>>>medicine, because they don't do much.
>>
>> LOL. That's a silly statement. Roche wouldn't have been
>> caught in a price-fixing scam if "dietary supplements"
>> didn't do much. It's such a silly statement, it makes you
>> sound like a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist.
>
>You're correct. I should have been clearer. Supplements do
>not do much to help people. I mean they don't cure disease or
>anything.

Again, you're not clear. That's a stupid statement. Many drugs
don't cure people of diseases. They help symptoms only.

And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may treat
many disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends on how one
defines that term.

But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not
help people. It is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not
help people.

>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines.
>
>And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like.

They can be a competition to the pharmaceutical bottom line. A
good example would be St. John's wort which treats
mild-to-moderate depression as well as many antidepressant
drugs (which do not cure but merely ameliorate depression).

[Jeff]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:suek51hb7kern257kiit7093crmus59t6r@4ax.com... (...)

>>You're correct. I should have been clearer. Supplements do
>>not do much to help people. I mean they don't cure disease
>>or anything.
>
> Again, you're not clear. That's a stupid statement.
> Many drugs don't cure people of diseases. They help
> symptoms only.

And supplements rarely even help symptoms.

> And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may
> treat many disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends on
> how one defines that term.

References please.

> But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not
> help people. It is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not
> help people.

As long as one has a healthy diet, supplements rarely
help people.

>>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines.
>>
>>And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like.
>
> They can be a competition to the pharmaceutical bottom line.
> A good example would be St. John's wort which treats
> mild-to-moderate depression as well as many antidepressant
> drugs (which do not cure but merely ameliorate depression).

Actually, subsequent research has questioned whether St.
John's wort is very helpful. But this is a very rare example
of where supplements have been shown to help.

Jeff

[Gmcarter]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:03:04 GMT, "Jeff"
<kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:suek51hb7kern257kiit7093crmus59t6r@4ax.com... (...)
>
>>>You're correct. I should have been clearer. Supplements do
>>>not do much to help people. I mean they don't cure disease
>>>or anything.
>>
>> Again, you're not clear. That's a stupid statement.
>> Many drugs don't cure people of diseases. They help
>> symptoms only.
>
>And supplements rarely even help symptoms.

I see. You're a bigot. Oh well.

>> And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may
>> treat many disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends
>> on how one defines that term.
>
>References please.

I could ask the same of you--but I realize you are not worth
the time. There are AMPLE data to show the evidence for a
range of micronutrients and botanicals. Glutamine for villous
atrophy, for protease inhibitor-related diarrhea. Silybum
marianum for liver disease. St. John's wort for
mild-to-moderate depression. Niacin for cholesterol. On and
on....but the data would not impress you because you're a
close-minded bigot.

>> But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not help
>> people. It is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not help
>> people.
>
>As long as one has a healthy diet, supplements rarely
>help people.

A recent JAMA report suggested that all adult Americans (and
by extrapolation, others) would benefit from a multivitamin.

But I do agree that a healthy diet FIRST is foremost, at least
in terms of the use of a multi. Also, exercise,
avoiding/quitting smoking, etc.

>>>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines.
>>>
>>>And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like.
>>
>> They can be a competition to the pharmaceutical bottom
>> line. A good example would be St. John's wort which treats
>> mild-to-moderate depression as well as many antidepressant
>> drugs (which do not cure but merely ameliorate depression).
>
>Actually, subsequent research has questioned whether St.
>John's wort is very helpful. But this is a very rare example
>of where supplements have been shown to help.

LOL. You're ignorant. And no, the study you refer to, I
suspect since you provide no reference, was for SEVERE
depression and the comparison drug in that study fared no
better. Not surprisingly. Most antidepressant drugs don't work
so well in that context.

George M. Carter

[Jeff]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dq8n51576rrpb9u89snvu1t2m1ae5rn93c@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:03:04 GMT, "Jeff"
> <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:suek51hb7kern257kiit7093crmus59t6r@4ax.com... (...)
>>
>>>>You're correct. I should have been clearer. Supplements do
>>>>not do much to help people. I mean they don't cure disease
>>>>or anything.
>>>
>>> Again, you're not clear. That's a stupid statement.
>>> Many drugs don't cure people of diseases. They help
>>> symptoms only.
>>
>>And supplements rarely even help symptoms.
>
> I see. You're a bigot. Oh well.

Well, if i am wrong, please show the studies that show that
supplements often help symptoms.

I mean the symptoms that the person takes them has.

I know it helps the empty wallet symptoms that the person
selling them has.

>>> And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may
>>> treat many disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends
>>> on how one defines that term.
>>
>>References please.
>
> I could ask the same of you--but I realize you are not worth
> the time. There are AMPLE data to show the evidence for a
> range of micronutrients and botanicals. Glutamine for
> villous atrophy, for protease inhibitor-related diarrhea.
> Silybum marianum for liver disease. St. John's wort for
> mild-to-moderate depression. Niacin for cholesterol. On and
> on....but the data would not impress you because you're a
> close-minded bigot.

In other words, you won't back your claims.

However, the vast majority of claims for the usefulness of
botonicals and micronutrients are not backed by science.
However, you forgot supplement for joint pain.

>>> But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not
>>> help people. It is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not
>>> help people.
>>
>>As long as one has a healthy diet, supplements rarely
>>help people.
>
> A recent JAMA report suggested that all adult Americans (and
> by extrapolation, others) would benefit from a multivitamin.
>
> But I do agree that a healthy diet FIRST is foremost, at
> least in terms of the use of a multi. Also, exercise,
> avoiding/quitting smoking, etc.

We both agree here. I take a multivitamin. But taking
megadoses of vitmains or taking vitamins or supplements for a
particular condition rarely help people.

>>>>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines.
>>>>
>>>>And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like.
>>>
>>> They can be a competition to the pharmaceutical bottom
>>> line. A good example would be St. John's wort which treats
>>> mild-to-moderate depression as well as many antidepressant
>>> drugs (which do not cure but merely ameliorate
>>> depression).
>>
>>Actually, subsequent research has questioned whether St.
>>John's wort is very helpful. But this is a very rare example
>>of where supplements have been shown to help.
>
> LOL. You're ignorant. And no, the study you refer to, I
> suspect since you provide no reference, was for SEVERE
> depression and the comparison drug in that study fared no
> better. Not surprisingly. Most antidepressant drugs don't
> work so well in that context.

Actually, this was what I was referring to:

Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;186:99-10 Related
Articles, Links

St John's wort for depression: meta-analysis of randomised
controlled trials.

Linde K, Berner M, Egger M, Mulrow C.

Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of
Internal Medicine II, Technische Universitat Munchen, Munich,
Germany. Klaus.Linde@lrz.tu-muenchen.de

BACKGROUND: Extracts of Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort)
are widely used to treat depression. Evidence for its efficacy
has been criticised on methodological grounds. AIMS: To update
evidence from randomised trials regarding the effectiveness of
Hypericum extracts. METHODS: We performed a systematic review
and meta-analysis of 37 double-blind randomised controlled
trials that compared clinical effects of Hypericum
monopreparation with either placebo or a standard
antidepressant in adults with depressive disorders. RESULTS:
Larger placebo-controlled trials restricted to patients with
major depression showed only minor effects over placebo, while
older and smaller trials not restricted to patients with major
depression showed marked effects. Compared with standard
antidepressants Hypericum extracts had similar effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence regarding Hypericum extracts is
inconsistent and confusing. In patients who meet criteria for
major depression, several recent placebo-controlled trials
suggest that Hypericum has minimal beneficial effects while
other trials suggest that Hypericum and standard
antidepressants have similar beneficial effects.

Jeff

> George M. Carter

[Maison.Mou]

GMCarter a écrit dans le message ...
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:03:04 GMT, "
SNIP<Silybum marianum for liver disease. St. John's wort for
mild-to-moderate depression. <
> George M. Carter
>

Silybum is not known to treat any disease. In particular liver
disease. An extract from the seeds of the plant is sold in
Europe as the drug "legalon". It has no approved usage but is
allowed for sell with the PROPOSED use for digestive troubles.
It's side effects are listed as abdominal pain and diarrhées.
Silymarine (silibinine) is not found in the green parts of the
plant at all. Only the seeds. Eating the seeds with not supply
the drug nor will attempting to make an infusion of the tea
work. Silymarine (silibinine) is found in usable amounts in
the eatable part of the artichoke. The artichoke has been used
in European folk medicine to treat digestive problems
associated with insufficient liver bile production. It may
help with digestion of cholesterol.

It is not as claimed used in European hospitals for any
reason.

St. John's wort has not been shown to be any more effective
for mild or moderate depression or any kind of depression than
a placebo. Phytotherapy is a very useful adjunct to other
types of medical care. It is not done by amateurs and bares no
relationship at all to "herbalism". Over half of all
medications used in the west are either chemicals from plants,
analogs of chemicals found in plants or higher plant parts.
The chemistry and use of these chemicals are known and because
even in the case of plant parts or extracts they are tested
and standardized so dosage can be controlled. Information on
legalon and other products containing Silymarine (silibinine)
is from OMS and "Dictionnaire Des Médicaments" by
Dr. Vittorio Fattorusso.

[John Que]

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YHt6e.5074$sp3.1321@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:suek51hb7kern257kiit7093crmus59t6r@4ax.com... (...)
>
> >>You're correct. I should have been clearer. Supplements do
> >>not do much
to
> >>help people. I mean they don't cure disease or anything.
> >
> > Again, you're not clear. That's a stupid statement.
> > Many drugs don't cure people of diseases. They help
> > symptoms only.
>
> And supplements rarely even help symptoms.

Myo-Inositol is very effective for panic attacks. There is
reason to believe alpha tocopheryl succinate is useful in the
context of cancer and cancer treatment. Vitamin D at higher
levels in the infant and the young prevents autoimmune
disorders. B-12 prevents declines in the CNS. CoQ-10 slows
Parkinson's disease. Vitamin D supplementation helps with
pain. Vitamin K is useful in preventing and/or treating
osteoporosis, osteopenia and ectopic calcification. Vitamin D
supplementation prevents falls. Alpha lipoic acid is useful in
slowing and reversing diabetic related neuropathy. High dose
B-2 is really good in reducing the frequency of migrane
attacks. B-12, folate, B-6, betaine improves genomic stabilty.

I could provide references but since ever time I provide
references or caught a factual error by my opposite, all I get
is dead silence or lazy "weaseling" for the other side, I
don't feel moved.

Your conventional Doc is not trained in the use of vitamins,
nutrients, nutrient-like compounds, and botanicals. They
aren't even very well trained in the use of most hormones. In
short, they aren't looking. In other words, "rarely" is in the
eye of the behavior.
>
> > And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may
> > treat many disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends
> > on how one defines that term.
>
> References please.

Quinine is a botanically derived agent. You'd better not a
reference for that one. DIM which is used to reduce the
conversion T to E2 can be found in botanical sources as I
recall. Quite a range of botanicals that reduce inflammation.
Since you are a older male, I suggest you try some Eurycoma
longfolia;-)

>
> > But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not
> > help people. It is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not
> > help people.
>
> As long as one has a healthy diet, supplements rarely
> help people.
>
> >>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines.
> >>
> >>And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like.
> >
> > They can be a competition to the pharmaceutical bottom
> > line. A good example would be St. John's wort which treats
> > mild-to-moderate depression as well as many antidepressant
> > drugs (which do not cure but merely ameliorate
> > depression).
>
> Actually, subsequent research has questioned whether St.
> John's wort is very helpful. But this is a very rare example
> of where supplements have been shown to help.

Were is your reference? Is it case of setting the example?

>
> Jeff

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:23:37 GMT, "Jeff"
<kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
snip...
>>>And supplements rarely even help symptoms.
>>
>> I see. You're a bigot. Oh well.
>
>Well, if i am wrong, please show the studies that show that
>supplements often help symptoms.

I listed (below) a number of interventions based on the
studies. You know how to use google? Pubmed?

>I mean the symptoms that the person takes them has.

Yes? You're incapable of doing research?

>I know it helps the empty wallet symptoms that the person
>selling them has.

One can genuinely say that about ALL pharmaceutical
drugs, regardless of their efficacy! And to a far more
despicable degree.

>>>> And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may
>>>> treat many disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends
>>>> on how one defines that term.
>>>
>>>References please.
>>
>> I could ask the same of you--but I realize you are not
>> worth the time. There are AMPLE data to show the evidence
>> for a range of micronutrients and botanicals. Glutamine for
>> villous atrophy, for protease inhibitor-related diarrhea.
>> Silybum marianum for liver disease. St. John's wort for
>> mild-to-moderate depression. Niacin for cholesterol. On and
>> on....but the data would not impress you because you're a
>> close-minded bigot.
>
>In other words, you won't back your claims.

Not for you, I won't. Why bother? You mind is set in stone.

>However, the vast majority of claims for the usefulness of
>botonicals and micronutrients are not backed by science.
>However, you forgot supplement for joint pain.

I have a supplement for joint pain? Wow. I had no idea. Thanks
for your virtual inventory! lol

>>>> But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not
>>>> help people. It is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not
>>>> help people.
>>>
>>>As long as one has a healthy diet, supplements rarely help
>>>people.
>>
>> A recent JAMA report suggested that all adult Americans
>> (and by extrapolation, others) would benefit from a
>> multivitamin.
>>
>> But I do agree that a healthy diet FIRST is foremost, at
>> least in terms of the use of a multi. Also, exercise,
>> avoiding/quitting smoking, etc.
>
>We both agree here. I take a multivitamin. But taking
>megadoses of vitmains or taking vitamins or supplements for a
>particular condition rarely help people.

Bully for you! What multi?

Your statement, again, is vague and strange. If you mean that
some people take stuff for no appreciable reason other than
being swayed by marketing and this may represent a waste of
resources, I wouldn't be surprised. But your belief is just a
hypothesis, not based on any data. To the extent it is true,
however, it is undoubtedly true that many people use
pharrmaceutical drugs with no appreciable benefit and, indeed,
a much great risk of harm.

>>>>>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines.
>>>>>
>>>>>And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like.
>>>>
>>>> They can be a competition to the pharmaceutical bottom
>>>> line. A good example would be St. John's wort which
>>>> treats mild-to-moderate depression as well as many
>>>> antidepressant drugs (which do not cure but merely
>>>> ameliorate depression).
>>>
>>>Actually, subsequent research has questioned whether St.
>>>John's wort is very helpful. But this is a very rare
>>>example of where supplements have been shown to help.
>>
>> LOL. You're ignorant. And no, the study you refer to, I
>> suspect since you provide no reference, was for SEVERE
>> depression and the comparison drug in that study fared no
>> better. Not surprisingly. Most antidepressant drugs don't
>> work so well in that context.
>
>Actually, this was what I was referring to:
>
> Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;186:99-10 Related Articles,
> Links

Thanks for the reference though it appears to be inaccurate.
Indeed, it conforms with what I stated (and is not a study but
a meta-analysis.) For major depression, SJW is not very
effective. Nor are antidepressants. For less than severe
depression it has "marked effects." Therefore, you hypothesis
that supplements do not help is rendered invalid. Here is the
abstract from PubMed:

Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;186:99-107. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read St John's wort for depression:
meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Linde K, Berner M, Egger M, Mulrow C.

Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of
Internal Medicine II, Technische Universitat Munchen,
Munich, Germany. Klaus.Linde@lrz.tu-muenchen.de

BACKGROUND: Extracts of Hypericum perforatum (St John's
wort) are widely used to treat depression. Evidence for
its efficacy has been criticised on methodological
grounds. AIMS: To update evidence from randomised trials
regarding the effectiveness of Hypericum extracts.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and
meta-analysis of 37 double-blind randomised controlled
trials that compared clinical effects of Hypericum
monopreparation with either placebo or a standard
antidepressant in adults with depressive disorders.
RESULTS: Larger placebo-controlled trials restricted to
patients with major depression showed only minor effects
over placebo, while older and smaller trials not
restricted to patients with major depression showed marked
effects. Compared with standard antidepressants Hypericum
extracts had similar effects. CONCLUSIONS: Current
evidence regarding Hypericum extracts is inconsistent and
confusing. In patients who meet criteria for major
depression, several recent placebo-controlled trials
suggest that Hypericum has minimal beneficial effects
while other trials suggest that Hypericum and standard
antidepressants have similar beneficial effects.

I believe there are significantly more than 37 studies but
have not read the full paper to understand their selection
criteria for evaluating studies.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:26:16 +0200, "maison.mousse"
<maison.mousse@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

>
>GMCarter a écrit dans le message ...
>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:03:04 GMT, "
>SNIP<Silybum marianum for liver disease. St. John's wort for
>mild-to-moderate depression. <
>> George M. Carter
>>
>
>
>Silybum is not known to treat any disease.

Nonsense. It is known to treat liver disease.

Whether it is approved by some regulatory agencies or not for
that indication, I don't know but that is a different issue.

The extent to which it works for various liver problems needs
to be better evaluated. But data show it can help reverse
fibrosis (see below). However, for conditions like hepatitis
C, it is not clear if it is of benefit (see small study of
Egyptian patients).

George M. Carter

** J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003 Oct;37(4):336-9. Related
Articles, Links Click here to read Silymarin retards the
progression of alcohol-induced hepatic fibrosis in baboons.

Lieber CS, Leo MA, Cao Q, Ren C, DeCarli LM.

Section of Liver Disease & Nutrition, Bronx VA Medical
Center & Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Bronx, New York
10468, USA. liebercs@aol.com

GOAL/BACKGROUND: Hepatoprotective effects of silymarin in
patients with alcoholic liver disease are controversial.
For strict control, this was assessed in non-human
primates.STUDY Twelve baboons were fed alcohol with or
without silymarin for 3 years with a nutritionally
adequate diet. RESULTS: Silymarin opposed the
alcohol-induced oxidative stress (assessed by plasma
4-hydroxynonenal) and the rise in liver lipids and
circulating ALT. Alcohol also increased hepatic collagen
type I by 50% over the 3 years with a significant rise in
mRNA for alpha1 (I) procollagen, both prevented by
silymarin. There were corresponding morphologic changes:
at 36 months, 2 of 6 animals fed alcohol had cirrhosis and
2 septal fibrosis, with perivenular fibrosis in 2, whereas
with alcohol + silymarin, there was only 1 cirrhosis and 1
septal fibrosis, with perivenular fibrosis in 2, and
virtually no lesions in the remaining 2. CONCLUSIONS:
Silymarin retards the development of alcohol-induced
hepatic fibrosis in baboons, consistent with several
positive clinical trials. The negative outcome observed in
other trials possibly reflects poor compliance resulting
in irregular or low silymarin intake. Thus, in view of the
innocuity of silymarin, it might be advisable in future
clinical studies to insure the controlled administration
of sufficient amounts of silymarin.

** Dig Liver Dis. 2004 Nov;36(11):752-9. Related
Articles, Links

Randomised double-blinded trial evaluating silymarin for
chronic hepatitis C in an Egyptian village: study
description and 12-month results.

Tanamly MD, Tadros F, Labeeb S, Makld H, Shehata M,
Mikhail N, Abdel-Hamid M, Shehata M, Abu-Baki L, Medhat A,
Magder LS, Afdhal NH, Strickland GT.

International Health Division, Department of Epidemiology
and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland School of
Medicine, 660 West Redwood St. Suite 100, Baltimore, MD
21201, USA.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: A double-blinded trial evaluating
silymarin, an herbal supplement for liver disease, to
prevent complications of chronic hepatitis C virus
infection has not been done. SUBJECTS: One hundred and
seventy-seven consenting residents of an Egyptian village
with chronic hepatitis C virus were randomly assigned to
receive either silymarin or multivitamin supplements.
METHODS: Participants had baseline and follow-up clinical,
ultrasound, blood tests and quality-of-life assessments.
Community nurses visited weekly to ascertain compliance,
distribute supplements and record adverse effects.
RESULTS: At 12 months almost all of 141 remaining subjects
reported feeling better, although symptoms and
quality-of-life scores did not differ between the
silymarin and multivitamin groups. Both the silymarin and
vitamins were tolerated equally well; and >95% of
supplements were taken by >95% of subjects. One in each
group had no detectable hepatitis C virus antibodies while
two in the silymarin group and three receiving
multivitamins had undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA.
Serum alanine aminotransferase elevations did not differ
between groups. Serum hepatic fibrosis marker, hyaluronic
acid and YKL-40, and abdominal ultrasound results were
similar in both groups and may have progressed slightly at
12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended dose of silymarin
can be safely taken for 1 year and improves symptoms and
general well-being, but has no effect upon hepatitis C
virus viremia, serum ALT, or serum and ultrasound markers
for hepatic fibrosis. More prolonged evaluation and a
higher dose may be required to ascertain whether milk
thistle supplements prevent complications of chronic
hepatitis C virus.

[Gk]

Jeff wrote:
> "Laurie Brandt" <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote in
> message news:laurie-0904051004460001@localhost...
>
>>Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow
>>the money. The pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by
>>folk using herbs, essential oils, homopathy and the like.
>>They don't like their profit margin cut in to.
>
>
> Actually, some pharmacuetical companies also make vitamins
> and other supplements.
>
> However, these supplemements don't really compete with real
> medicine, because they don't do much.
>
> Jeff

Actually, they often do quite alot, depending upon the herbs
and the ailment. In China for example, only herbs are used in
treating hepatitis. Herbs cannot cure the disease, but they
can halt it's progression and reverse the damage (fibrosis)
done to your liver. Traditional western medicine, IFN/RBV has
approximately a 50% cure rate for all types of Hep C combined
because not everyone responds to the drugs, furthermore it
makes almost all people very sick. For those who do not
respond to these drugs or cannot tolerate the sickness, they
can often switch treatment to specific herbs that allow them
to live out normal lives while the virus still exists in the
body. You can do your own googling and research if your
interested.

However, you are correct that in some cases herbs just can't
do what western medicine does. For example, no herb has the
anti-viral power of modern anti-biotics. But it would be very
narrow minded, incomplete, and incorrect to conclude that
herbs are not helpful for treating a plethora or illnesses.

[Gmcarter]

lay article so take it with a grain of ascorbate...

** Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:35:24 -0400 Subject: The
Independent - on C

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/story.jsp?sto-
ry=628538 Vitamin C may be a life-saver Mega-doses of Vitamin
C can counter avian flu, hepatitis and herpes, and can even
control the advance of Aids By Jane Feinmann

12 April 2005

Imagine that a deadly virus is sweeping the world, killing and
maiming hundreds of thousands of children. Nothing seems able
to stop it - until a doctor stands up at the American Medical
Association and reports on 60 cases involving severely
infected children, all of whom have been cured. Yet his work,
subsequently reported in a peer-review journal, is ignored,
leaving the virus to wreak havoc for decades.

This isn't a docudrama about some futuristic plague - it's a
true story about what happened in June 1949 when polio was at
its peak. Dr Frederick Klenner, a clinical researcher from
Reidsville, North Carolina, reported that a massive
intravenous dose of Vitamin C - up to 20,000mg daily for three
days (today's recommended daily allowance is 60mg) - had cured
60 of his patients. The findings were published in a medical
journal, yet there was virtually no interest. Apart from a
couple of minor trials, no attempt was made to find out if
they had any scientific substance.

Relating this curious incident in a new book, Vitamin C,
Infectious Diseases & Toxins: Curing the Incurable, Dr Thomas
Levy, a US cardiologist, admits to being gripped by a range of
emotions when he came across Klenner's work and other studies
that replicated it. "To know that polio had been easily cured
yet so many people continued to die, or survived to be
permanently crippled by it, was difficult to accept."

Levy argues that the medical profession has routinely ignored
research showing that high doses of Vitamin C can combat
bacteria, toxins and severe viral infections including avian
flu, SARS, hepatitis and herpes. And this is not a case of
doctors sniffing at anecdotal evidence from a handful of
enthusiasts. "Vitamin C is possibly the best-researched
substance in the world. There are more than 24,000 papers and
articles on the authoritative clinical website, Medline. Yet
virtually the all the evidence has been dismissed." Levy even
claims that Aids can be controlled if a high enough dosage of
Vitamin C is maintained.

This is not the first time doctors have had their cages
rattled over the benefits of Vitamin C. The controversy has
been simmering since 1753, when just a couple of sucks of a
lime were shown to prevent scurvy. In the 1950s the chemist
Linus Pauling, a double Nobel prize-winner, promoted the use
of mega-doses of Vitamin C, but his research was rubbished by
clinicians.

Recently, the anti-Vitamin C sentiment has grown. It has been
blamed for causing the formation of kidney stones, and a study
published in the journal Science in 2001 found that even 200mg
doses of Vitamin C "facilitated the production of DNA-damaging
agents associated with a variety of cancers". This finding was
widely interpreted as proving that Vitamin C causes cancer.

Britain's Food Standards Agency recommends taking a maximum
of 1,000mg of Vitamin C a day. But a directive going through
the European Parliament aims to reduce this to less than
100mg in an attempt to harmonise dosages across the
Continent. Despite being dubbed "illegal" by the advocate
general of the European Court of Justice last week, the
directive could still be passed.

The controversy has not put off consumers, many of whom take
Vitamin C to ward off colds. The 1,000 mg capsule is the
most popular single vitamin in Britain, with the 500mg
version second.

Some people argue that we can get sufficient Vitamin C from a
diet rich in fruit and vegetables, but Levy disagrees. The
problem, he says, is that a genetic design fault makes us
unable to synthesise our own Vitamin C. Levy claims that while
recommended daily allowances of 60mg are enough to prevent the
development of scurvy in otherwise healthy people, much higher
levels are required to maintain health when an infection
strikes. At such times, the body begins to "metabolise
unusually large amounts of vitamin C, keeping stores so
depleted that the recommended daily allowance will not even
prevent many of the symptoms of scurvy from developing".

Levy claims that the reason why most animals stay healthy
throughout their lives, while humans spend years coping with
one or more chronic diseases, is that animals make their own
Vitamin C. The wild goat, for instance, makes around 13,000mg
a day, rising to 100,000mg when faced with life-threatening
infectious or toxic stress, according to a 1961 study
published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

So, is Levy right? Should everyone be taking mega-doses
every day and having intravenous infusions when they fall
ill? Possibly.

Dr Rodney Adeniyi-Jones regularly gives 20,000mg doses to
people with arterial disease and as part of a flu treatment
protocol, describing its effects as "beneficial... but not
miraculous". And Professor George Lewith of the Centre for
Complementary and Integrated Medicine says that while Vitamin
C is not a panacea, it does have clinical benefits depending
on the dosage. "There may be doses that are therapeutic, while
another dose may be damaging for the same condition. It is not
a dose-response curve as with pharmaceuticals, and we need to
be cautious until this is better understood."

But he also warns that: "Many of the [Vitamin C] trials have
been badly done and what evidence exists is mixed. Both
those in favour and against high doses frequently
misinterpret the data."

Levy may well be seen to have an axe to grind, yet the
evidence seems to support his view that apart from causing
diarrhoea, mega-doses of Vitamin C are not toxic. He says that
a series of studies published in leading journals have shown
that, far from causing cancer, Vitamin C is a safe supplement
for chronic cancer patients. Further large studies suggest
that supplements do not put a normal person at greater risk of
developing kidney stones.

According to Levy, the problem is not that people might take
too much, but that they won't take enough - and thus won't get
the desired effects. "There's a popular medical view that
taking Vitamin C just makes expensive urine. Some of it is
lost in urine, but the more you consume, the more stays in
your body."

With a new book on the way claiming that Vitamin C deficiency
is also a primary cause of cardiovascular disease, Levy cannot
be accused of underselling his case. Nor can he overcome the
fact that proper clinical trials are still desperately needed.
Considering its overall safety, there appears to be no good
reason why anyone with a chronic or acute health problem
should not try, at the very least, a couple of week's regime
of two or three 1,000mg tablets of Vitamin C a day.

Need to Know: So how much should you take?

* For a cold

Three 1,000mg doses a day, according to the campaign group
Consumers for Health Choice.

* For flu

Although it's more serious, the viral load is similar,
according to research, and taking up to 20,000mg a day could
be beneficial.

* For shingles

Research has shown that this painful post-viral condition can
be pretty well cured by an injection of 3,000mg of vitamin C.
Taking four 1,000mg tablets orally for three days could be
worthwhile as well.

* For a hangover

Taking 1,000mg daily in the week before a booze-up reduces
stress on the liver. If you're drunk and want to look sober, a
large dose of vitamin C will prevent drunken behaviour,
according to a 1986 study, "Alcohol and Alcoholism".

* To maintain your health

A 1,000mg daily dose is regarded as safe by the Food Standards
Agency, and adequate to keep sufficient vitamin C in the
plasma and tissues. "We believe this is absolutely safe and
definitely beneficial to people's health," says Sue Croft of
Consumers for Health Choice.

[Jeff]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ldtp51lggave7jc1uvfng3vn2b5ieuee6c@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:23:37 GMT, "Jeff"
> <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> snip...
>>>>And supplements rarely even help symptoms.
>>>
>>> I see. You're a bigot. Oh well.
>>
>>Well, if i am wrong, please show the studies that show that
>>supplements often help symptoms.
>
> I listed (below) a number of interventions based on the
> studies. You know how to use google? Pubmed?

In other words, you can't back your claims. Fine with me.

>>I mean the symptoms that the person takes them has.
>
> Yes? You're incapable of doing research?

Apparently, you are. It is not up to me to back your claims.

>>I know it helps the empty wallet symptoms that the person
>>selling them has.
>
> One can genuinely say that about ALL pharmaceutical
> drugs, regardless of their efficacy! And to a far more
> despicable degree.

Correct.

This week we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of licensing
of polio vaccine. This lead to the empty iron-lung syndrome.
And kept a few thousand graves empty. Nothing wrong with
getting paid for drugs that work.

>>>>> And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may
>>>>> treat many disease symptoms and or effect a cure.
>>>>> Depends on how one defines that term.
>>>>
>>>>References please.
>>>
>>> I could ask the same of you--but I realize you are not
>>> worth the time. There are AMPLE data to show the evidence
>>> for a range of micronutrients and botanicals. Glutamine
>>> for villous atrophy, for protease inhibitor-related
>>> diarrhea. Silybum marianum for liver disease. St. John's
>>> wort for mild-to-moderate depression. Niacin for
>>> cholesterol. On and on....but the data would not impress
>>> you because you're a close-minded bigot.
>>
>>In other words, you won't back your claims.
>
> Not for you, I won't. Why bother? You mind is set in stone.

Then you lose the debate.

>>However, the vast majority of claims for the usefulness of
>>botonicals and micronutrients are not backed by science.
>>However, you forgot supplement for joint pain.
>
> I have a supplement for joint pain? Wow. I had no idea.
> Thanks for your virtual inventory! lol
>
>>>>> But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not
>>>>> help people. It is just as idiotic as saying drugs do
>>>>> not help people.
>>>>
>>>>As long as one has a healthy diet, supplements rarely help
>>>>people.
>>>
>>> A recent JAMA report suggested that all adult Americans
>>> (and by extrapolation, others) would benefit from a
>>> multivitamin.
>>>
>>> But I do agree that a healthy diet FIRST is foremost, at
>>> least in terms of the use of a multi. Also, exercise,
>>> avoiding/quitting smoking, etc.
>>
>>We both agree here. I take a multivitamin. But taking
>>megadoses of vitmains or taking vitamins or supplements for
>>a particular condition rarely help people.
>
> Bully for you! What multi?

Whatever one is cheapest. Unfortunately, the FDA doesn't
monitor the quality of the multivitamins, so I have no reason
to beleive that the cheap Target multivitamin is any worse
than any other one.

> Your statement, again, is vague and strange. If you mean
> that some people take stuff for no appreciable reason other
> than being swayed by marketing and this may represent a
> waste of resources, I wouldn't be surprised. But your belief
> is just a hypothesis, not based on any data. To the extent
> it is true, however, it is undoubtedly true that many people
> use pharrmaceutical drugs with no appreciable benefit and,
> indeed, a much great risk of harm.

However, each and every drug out there has been shown to work
in clinical trials and almost every one has backing in basic
science. AFAK, there has been no clinical trial that shows
that multivitamins help those who eat a healthy diet. However,
there is some good basic science to suspect that it will, and
this is a cheap and safe intervention.

>>>>>>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like.
>>>>>
>>>>> They can be a competition to the pharmaceutical bottom
>>>>> line. A good example would be St. John's wort which
>>>>> treats mild-to-moderate depression as well as many
>>>>> antidepressant drugs (which do not cure but merely
>>>>> ameliorate depression).
>>>>
>>>>Actually, subsequent research has questioned whether St.
>>>>John's wort is very helpful. But this is a very rare
>>>>example of where supplements have been shown to help.
>>>
>>> LOL. You're ignorant. And no, the study you refer to, I
>>> suspect since you provide no reference, was for SEVERE
>>> depression and the comparison drug in that study fared no
>>> better. Not surprisingly. Most antidepressant drugs don't
>>> work so well in that context.
>>
>>Actually, this was what I was referring to:
>>
>> Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;186:99-10 Related Articles,
>> Links
>
> Thanks for the reference though it appears to be inaccurate.
> Indeed, it conforms with what I stated (and is not a study
> but a meta-analysis.)

A meta-analysis is a study.

> For major depression, SJW is not very effective. Nor are
> antidepressants. For less than severe depression it has
> "marked effects." Therefore, you hypothesis that
> supplements do not help is rendered invalid. Here is the
> abstract from PubMed:

No. I said that the effectiveness of SJW has been called into
question. It has been.

Jeff

> Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;186:99-107. Related Articles, Link
> Click here to read St John's wort for depression:
> meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
>
> Linde K, Berner M, Egger M, Mulrow C.
>
> Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of
> Internal Medicine II, Technische Universitat Munchen,
> Munich, Germany. Klaus.Linde@lrz.tu-muenchen.de
>
> BACKGROUND: Extracts of Hypericum perforatum (St John's
> wort) are widely used to treat depression. Evidence for
> its efficacy has been criticised on methodological
> grounds. AIMS: To update evidence from randomised trials
> regarding the effectiveness of Hypericum extracts.
> METHODS: We performed a systematic review and
> meta-analysis of 37 double-blind randomised controlled
> trials that compared clinical effects of Hypericum
> monopreparation with either placebo or a standard
> antidepressant in adults with depressive disorders.
> RESULTS: Larger placebo-controlled trials restricted to
> patients with major depression showed only minor effects
> over placebo, while older and smaller trials not
> restricted to patients with major depression showed
> marked effects. Compared with standard antidepressants
> Hypericum extracts had similar effects. CONCLUSIONS:
> Current evidence regarding Hypericum extracts is
> inconsistent and confusing. In patients who meet criteria
> for major depression, several recent placebo-controlled
> trials suggest that Hypericum has minimal beneficial
> effects while other trials suggest that Hypericum and
> standard antidepressants have similar beneficial effects.
>
> I believe there are significantly more than 37 studies but
> have not read the full paper to understand their selection
> criteria for evaluating studies.
>
> George M. Carter

[Eric Bohlm]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
news:mmsh511ml7ho1i1fd65kn2aa9e61792mbr@4ax.com:

> LOL. That's a silly statement. Roche wouldn't have been
> caught in a price-fixing scam if "dietary supplements"
> didn't do much. It's such a silly statement, it makes you
> sound like a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist.

Sorry, that simply doesn't follow. In order for a company to
have an incentive to get involved in a price-fixing scam, it's
hardly necessary for their products to actually "do much." All
that's necessary is for a lot of people to want to buy them.
And that can happen for quite a variety of reasons other than
the true efficacy of the products. Brand loyalty, perceived
benefit independent of demonstrated benefit, "just in case"
mentality, the list goes on. The simple fact is that few if
any products or services are purchased by _homo economicus_,
who is to economics what the celebrated "perfectly spherical
frictionless cow" is to physics: an oversimplifying assumption
used for pedagogy.

[Gmcarter]

On 14 Apr 2005 05:53:53 GMT, Eric Bohlman
<ebohlman@omsdev.com> wrote:

>GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>news:mmsh511ml7ho1i1fd65kn2aa9e61792mbr@4ax.com:
>
>> LOL. That's a silly statement. Roche wouldn't have been
>> caught in a price-fixing scam if "dietary supplements"
>> didn't do much. It's such a silly statement, it makes you
>> sound like a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist.
>
>Sorry, that simply doesn't follow. In order for a company to
>have an incentive to get involved in a price-fixing scam,
>it's hardly necessary for their products to actually "do
>much." All that's necessary is for a lot of people to want to
>buy them.

Agreed. Roche, tho, didn't DIRECTLY market their vitamin
products through the vitamin division. Other companies
purchase the raw material to make end-user products.

See http://www.econ.ucy.ac.cy/~sofronis/classes/vitamins.html

and interestingly, they don't give up:
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/87582

but finally appear to have abandoned the business:
http://www.roche.com/med-cor-2003-02-10c

>And that can happen for quite a variety of reasons other than
>the true efficacy of the products. Brand loyalty, perceived
>benefit independent of demonstrated benefit, "just in case"
>mentality, the list goes on.

Sure--but in this case, people were NOT purchasing based on
brand loyalty, etc. They bought what they could get and the
"competition" piece of the equation was removed. "Price
fixing" in short.

Roche was just doing to vitamins what they already do through
the distortions upon intellectual property right, where they,
as others in the industry, appear to feel they have a
legitimate claim to hiding behind the intent of IP law to
justify price gouging and other forms of fiscal rape.

Indeed, Roche has not limited its nefarious activities to
vitamins. They attempted to patent Centella asiatica and sell
it locally in Madagascar at a higher price. Fortunately,
locals rejected the notion and their efforts were rebuffed. A
similar attempt occurred when the
U. of Mississippi attempted to place patent on curcumin for
wound healing and the Indian government successfully
overturned the attempt, citing prior art.

The effects of the pharmaceutical industry on indigenous
knowledge and intellectual property represents a significant
threat to local ability to develop economically. In short, big
business, give a fraction of a chance, will screw and rape the
crap out of local peoples for profit. Not always, happily, but
more routinely and "fair trade" is the exception, not the
rule. Indeed, the US Trade Representative has worked with
religious fervor to obtain unilateral trade agreements that
abrogate the rights of developing nations, even those
developed by the World Trade Organization, hardly a bastion of
human rights.

See, e.g., http://www.icsf.net/jsp/publication/occasionalpape-
rs/trip_english.pdf

>The simple fact is that few if any products or services are
>purchased by _homo economicus_, who is to economics what the
>celebrated "perfectly spherical frictionless cow" is to
>physics: an oversimplifying assumption used for pedagogy.

One must indeed beware of oversimplifying, I agree.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:35:52 GMT, "Jeff"
<kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:ldtp51lggave7jc1uvfng3vn2b5ieuee6c@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:23:37 GMT, "Jeff"
>> <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> snip...
>>>>>And supplements rarely even help symptoms.
>>>>
>>>> I see. You're a bigot. Oh well.
>>>
>>>Well, if i am wrong, please show the studies that show that
>>>supplements often help symptoms.
>>
>> I listed (below) a number of interventions based on the
>> studies. You know how to use google? Pubmed?
>
>In other words, you can't back your claims. Fine with me.

Yet again, you make a fatuous claim based on nothing. I can
certainly back my claims. I simply choose not to with you. Or
at least only to the extent I wish.

>>>I mean the symptoms that the person takes them has.
>>
>> Yes? You're incapable of doing research?
>
>Apparently, you are. It is not up to me to back your claims.

LOL. No, but you don't back your own claims.

>>>I know it helps the empty wallet symptoms that the person
>>>selling them has.
>>
>> One can genuinely say that about ALL pharmaceutical drugs,
>> regardless of their efficacy! And to a far more despicable
>> degree.
>
>Correct.
>
>This week we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of
>licensing of polio vaccine. This lead to the empty iron-lung
>syndrome. And kept a few thousand graves empty. Nothing wrong
>with getting paid for drugs that work.

Interesting you would pick polio. Do you know its discoverer's
views on patenting vaccines?

I have nothing against reasonable profit. What the
pharmaceutical industry is doing is not capitalism. It is
rape.

>>>>>> And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may
>>>>>> treat many disease symptoms and or effect a cure.
>>>>>> Depends on how one defines that term.
>>>>>
>>>>>References please.
>>>>
>>>> I could ask the same of you--but I realize you are not
>>>> worth the time. There are AMPLE data to show the evidence
>>>> for a range of micronutrients and botanicals. Glutamine
>>>> for villous atrophy, for protease inhibitor-related
>>>> diarrhea. Silybum marianum for liver disease. St. John's
>>>> wort for mild-to-moderate depression. Niacin for
>>>> cholesterol. On and on....but the data would not impress
>>>> you because you're a close-minded bigot.
>>>
>>>In other words, you won't back your claims.
>>
>> Not for you, I won't. Why bother? You mind is set in stone.
>
>Then you lose the debate.

And you may go in peace.

>>>However, the vast majority of claims for the usefulness of
>>>botonicals and micronutrients are not backed by science.
>>>However, you forgot supplement for joint pain.
>>
>> I have a supplement for joint pain? Wow. I had no idea.
>> Thanks for your virtual inventory! lol
>>
>>>>>> But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not
>>>>>> help people. It is just as idiotic as saying drugs do
>>>>>> not help people.
>>>>>
>>>>>As long as one has a healthy diet, supplements rarely
>>>>>help people.
>>>>
>>>> A recent JAMA report suggested that all adult Americans
>>>> (and by extrapolation, others) would benefit from a
>>>> multivitamin.
>>>>
>>>> But I do agree that a healthy diet FIRST is foremost, at
>>>> least in terms of the use of a multi. Also, exercise,
>>>> avoiding/quitting smoking, etc.
>>>
>>>We both agree here. I take a multivitamin. But taking
>>>megadoses of vitmains or taking vitamins or supplements for
>>>a particular condition rarely help people.
>>
>> Bully for you! What multi?
>
>Whatever one is cheapest. Unfortunately, the FDA doesn't
>monitor the quality of the multivitamins, so I have no reason
>to beleive that the cheap Target multivitamin is any worse
>than any other one.

You can review www.consumerlab.com for a better idea.

I find it interesting that someone who seeks proof is
willing to spend money of--to you--unknown quality for no
apparent reason?

>> Your statement, again, is vague and strange. If you mean
>> that some people take stuff for no appreciable reason other
>> than being swayed by marketing and this may represent a
>> waste of resources, I wouldn't be surprised. But your
>> belief is just a hypothesis, not based on any data. To the
>> extent it is true, however, it is undoubtedly true that
>> many people use pharrmaceutical drugs with no appreciable
>> benefit and, indeed, a much great risk of harm.
>
>However, each and every drug out there has been shown to
>work in clinical trials and almost every one has backing in
>basic science.

Where in the WORLD do you get that statement??? (Speaking of
not backing claims: you don't either.) Indeed, only some 20%
of drugs currently used have clinical trials info to back
them. A good chunk of the rest are prescribed "off-label"
oftentimes at the urging of pharma reps.

>AFAK, there has been no clinical trial that shows that
>multivitamins help those who eat a healthy diet. However,
>there is some good basic science to suspect that it will, and
>this is a cheap and safe intervention.

Help "those" means nothing. In general, I agree with your
comment, however there are also data underscoring that for
specific conditions, use of a multi can, for example, slow HIV
disease progression by about 30% and reduce morbidity and
mortality among people with AIDS (i.e., low CD4 count,
detectable viral load).

>>>>>>>They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom
>>>>>>>lines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They can be a competition to the pharmaceutical bottom
>>>>>> line. A good example would be St. John's wort which
>>>>>> treats mild-to-moderate depression as well as many
>>>>>> antidepressant drugs (which do not cure but merely
>>>>>> ameliorate depression).
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, subsequent research has questioned whether St.
>>>>>John's wort is very helpful. But this is a very rare
>>>>>example of where supplements have been shown to help.
>>>>
>>>> LOL. You're ignorant. And no, the study you refer to, I
>>>> suspect since you provide no reference, was for SEVERE
>>>> depression and the comparison drug in that study fared no
>>>> better. Not surprisingly. Most antidepressant drugs don't
>>>> work so well in that context.
>>>
>>>Actually, this was what I was referring to:
>>>
>>> Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;186:99-10 Related Articles,
>>> Links
>>
>> Thanks for the reference though it appears to be
>> inaccurate. Indeed, it conforms with what I stated (and is
>> not a study but a meta-analysis.)
>
>A meta-analysis is a study.

Yes.

>> For major depression, SJW is not very effective. Nor are
>> antidepressants. For less than severe depression it has
>> "marked effects." Therefore, you hypothesis that
>> supplements do not help is rendered invalid. Here is the
>> abstract from PubMed:
>
>No. I said that the effectiveness of SJW has been called into
>question. It has been.
>

LOL. The efficacy of many drugs has been called into question.
I call your sincerity into question! So what?

Wow. You are pretty inflexibly stupid, frankly. I'm sorry for
you, guy. You have no idea how to use your mind, your heart. I
hope you find healing for that lesion of bigotry!

George M. Carter

[David Wrig]

In article <e5fk51hq5qma1u9hane07rsv4dpbkh8uk6@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:42:18 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>(David Wright) wrote:
>
>>In article <hpsh515v7r5dm1s2iau5pf0g0tm7i5ahm0@4ax.com>,
>>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:39:16 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>>>(David Wright) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <laurie-0904051004460001@localhost>, Laurie
>>>>Brandt <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote:
>>>>>Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow
>>>>>the money. The pharmisutical industry is beint cut into
>>>>>by folk using herbs, essential oils, homopathy and the
>>>>>like. They don't like their profit margin cut in to.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, horse manure. If there's a ton of money to be made in
>>>>herbs, the big pharma companies will just buy up the small
>>>>ones, or force them out of business.
>>>
>>>Indeed, they have tried to do this. And there is a good
>>>deal of money to be made in botanical medicine.
>>>
>>>But you can't patent a botanical as readily as a drug. And
>>>if there is a competition between a drug, like a statin,
>>>say, and other interventions which cannot be patented, the
>>>profit margin falls dramatically.
>>
>>And yet -- there are generic drug companies that are doing
>>just fine. And even big pharma makes vitamins. It's almost
>>enough to make one think there's money in it.
>
>Yes, indeed there is. And where there's money, there's
>potential for corruption, no doubt.
>
>But the BIG difference is that where generics are available,
>the original drug is off-patent and thus there is
>COMPETITION. So there isn't the same degree of outrageous
>price gouging that pharma now uses, hiding behind IP as a
>slim justification for destroying the US healthcare system.

There's lots of competition even in patented pharmaceuticals,
as each company comes out with its "me too" drug -- statins,
for example. Lots and lots of expensive drugs that we don't
really need.

>>>And then there is genuine capitalist competition in the
>>>market place, rather than the distorted perversion of
>>>intellectual property rights that the pharmaceutical
>>>industry hides behind to justify price gouging, which
>>>results in destabilizing the dismal health care access in
>>>the United States causing massive suffering and death.
>>
>>You'll have a harder time making that one stick. It's
>>certainly true in the case of some persons, no question, but
>>since only about 10% of health care dollars go to
>>prescription costs, even if you cut that to zero, things are
>>still going to be expensive and the system is still broken.
>
>Where did you get the 10% figure?

Newsweek.

>But I agree that prescription drug costs are only a part of
>the issue. Drugs, diagnostics and devices all play a role, as
>well as hospital fees, etc.

The most outrageous one by far is that the potential big
single payer, the government, is typically prohibited from
negotiating for better prices. The other biggie is the vast
amount (hundreds of billions) wasted through all the insurance
company processing.

>>>Globally, the industry feels IP rights trump human life and
>>>have worked assiduously to block access to generic HIV
>>>medications and treaments for opportunitistic infections,
>>>resulting in literally MILLIONS of unnecessary deaths of
>>>men, women and children.
>>
>>Well, it's kind of a difficult thing for a capitalistic
>>company, isn't it? I mean, if you give everything away, how
>>do you stay in business.
>
>LOL. PHARMA isn't capitalism which is rooted in notions of
>competition and open markets, yes? Pharma is selected
>products upon which peoples' lives depend, and upon which
>they exert monopolistic control.

That's sometimes true and sometimes not. But then their
patents run out.

>>>>(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone
>>>>selling high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big
>>>>bucks for either water or alcohol or sugar pills,
>>>>depending on the nature of the remedy.)
>>>
>>>Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your
>>>statement.
>>
>>And most of it doesn't.
>
>So you claim. I take it you've read all the extant studies?
>Or can you point to a meta-analysis? (Please don't bother
>with Stephen Barrett; he is completely discredited as far as
>I'm concerned as a knee-jerk bigot.)

The meta-analysis in the Lancet was pretty damning, even
though it's the one the pro-homeopathy folks like to cite. In
any event, trying to find positive results that anyone else
has managed to replicate is nearly impossible. If homeopathy
really worked, it wouldn't be THAT hard to demonstrate.

>>In fact, the whole question of how you distinguish between a
>>homeopathic remedy and a placebo is an interesting one.
>
>Yep! Absolultely. Lots of fascinating questions regarding
>health, etc. embedded in that, not to mention the physics of
>water molecules.

And the non-existent "memory" of same.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff
loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of
the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that
conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:53:40 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
(David Wright) wrote:

snip...

>>But the BIG difference is that where generics are available,
>>the original drug is off-patent and thus there is
>>COMPETITION. So there isn't the same degree of outrageous
>>price gouging that pharma now uses, hiding behind IP as a
>>slim justification for destroying the US healthcare system.
>
>There's lots of competition even in patented pharmaceuticals,
>as each company comes out with its "me too" drug -- statins,
>for example. Lots and lots of expensive drugs that we don't
>really need.

Actually, I'm not as hard on me-too drugs PER SE as I used to
be. Different statins have different drug-drug interaction
profiles and levels of efficacy. Pravastatin is not the same
as atorvastatin.

But that's not the issue. The issue is that ONLY one company
can make atorvastatin. Period. Until the patent runs out.
There is NO competition for that drug and thus it is THE
biggest drug seller on the market, making the company BILLIONS
of dollars per year.

Worse, because this fits in the "blockbuster" profile, it
means other drugs fail to be developed or investigated. That
is, statins treat a chronic disease and do NOT cure it--they
manage lipid dyscrasias. They are taken for life. And they
charge whatever they can get away with.

Meanwhile, an infectious disease--a bacterial or fungal
infection--that is cured via a short course of treatment is
not interesting to study. Not enough money. Thus, multidrug
resistant strains of Staph, strep, TB, cryptococcal meningitis
and other infections, let alone ones that afflict MILLIONS but
are not perceived as money makers--are ignored.

So you're NOT arguing the merits of capitalism versus
socialism. What pharma does--and this extends to patenting all
sorts of things that affect the development of drugs,
diagnostics, devices, in vitro testing, etc.--is a distortion
of patent law that destroys its intent. Reward for discovery
is used as a shield to justify price gouging. And discovery is
more and more narrowly defined--it must fall under the rubric
of "blockbuster" to appease the parasites on Wall Street who
produce nothing but shuffle money around and suck the cream
off the top.

And in terms of global public health, "globalization" should
mean healthcare. As the world becomes smaller, do you think
outbreaks, like Marburg in Angola, are going to remain
geographically restricted? Or H5N1?

>>>>And then there is genuine capitalist competition in the
>>>>market place, rather than the distorted perversion of
>>>>intellectual property rights that the pharmaceutical
>>>>industry hides behind to justify price gouging, which
>>>>results in destabilizing the dismal health care access in
>>>>the United States causing massive suffering and death.
>>>
>>>You'll have a harder time making that one stick. It's
>>>certainly true in the case of some persons, no question,
>>>but since only about 10% of health care dollars go to
>>>prescription costs, even if you cut that to zero, things
>>>are still going to be expensive and the system is still
>>>broken.
>>
>>Where did you get the 10% figure?
>
>Newsweek.

A great peer-reviewed journal, I see. So. Issue? Article?

>>But I agree that prescription drug costs are only a part of
>>the issue. Drugs, diagnostics and devices all play a role,
>>as well as hospital fees, etc.
>
>The most outrageous one by far is that the potential big
>single payer, the government, is typically prohibited from
>negotiating for better prices. The other biggie is the vast
>amount (hundreds of billions) wasted through all the
>insurance company processing.

Absolutely agree here--Medicare drug benefit was intentionally
PREVENTED from negotiating prices by politicians who all
suffer BTS with pharma, an incurable disease.

>>>>Globally, the industry feels IP rights trump human life
>>>>and have worked assiduously to block access to generic HIV
>>>>medications and treaments for opportunitistic infections,
>>>>resulting in literally MILLIONS of unnecessary deaths of
>>>>men, women and children.
>>>
>>>Well, it's kind of a difficult thing for a capitalistic
>>>company, isn't it? I mean, if you give everything away, how
>>>do you stay in business.
>>
>>LOL. PHARMA isn't capitalism which is rooted in notions of
>>competition and open markets, yes? Pharma is selected
>>products upon which peoples' lives depend, and upon which
>>they exert monopolistic control.
>
>That's sometimes true and sometimes not. But then their
>patents run out.

Meantime, millions of people have died needlessly of AIDS
while pharma has blocked access to generic medications in
Ghana, Thailand, South Africa and elsewhere.

>>>>>(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone
>>>>>selling high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging
>>>>>big bucks for either water or alcohol or sugar pills,
>>>>>depending on the nature of the remedy.)
>>>>
>>>>Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your
>>>>statement.
>>>
>>>And most of it doesn't.
>>
>>So you claim. I take it you've read all the extant studies?
>>Or can you point to a meta-analysis? (Please don't bother
>>with Stephen Barrett; he is completely discredited as far as
>>I'm concerned as a knee-jerk bigot.)
>
>The meta-analysis in the Lancet was pretty damning, even
>though it's the one the pro-homeopathy folks like to cite. In
>any event, trying to find positive results that anyone else
>has managed to replicate is nearly impossible. If homeopathy
>really worked, it wouldn't be THAT hard to demonstrate.

Depends on your criteria for what works. Can you see though
that you're asking about whether a SYSTEM works or not? Does
allopathy work? You could cite a failed drug study that was
dropped due to QT prolongation or other serious adverse event.
Then would that mean allopathy doesn't work?

>>>In fact, the whole question of how you distinguish between
>>>a homeopathic remedy and a placebo is an interesting one.
>>
>>Yep! Absolultely. Lots of fascinating questions regarding
>>health, etc. embedded in that, not to mention the physics of
>>water molecules.
>
>And the non-existent "memory" of same.

Really? You're sure of that?

George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:39:16 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
> (David Wright) wrote:
>>(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling
>>high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for
>>either water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending on the
>>nature of the remedy.)
>
> Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your
> statement. I have no strong opinion one way or the other on
> the system of homeopathy.

Then you're an idiot. You may as well make the same
observation of every religion, every superstition, every palm
reading scam, every chicken-killing entrails-reading-based
cancer cure scam, every talk to your dead granny
psychic scam. Do you believe that there are hot girls waiting
for your call? Is there no stupid scam that you don't
apologetically shrink from dismissing? No? OK doofus, name
ONE. Show us that the guy who has no "strong opinion" on
homeopathy has a "strong opinion" on *anything*. My money
says you don't.

moo

[Gmcarter]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 04:00:39 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:39:16 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>> (David Wright) wrote:
>>>(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone
>>>selling high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big
>>>bucks for either water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending
>>>on the nature of the remedy.)
>>
>> Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your
>> statement. I have no strong opinion one way or the other on
>> the system of homeopathy.
>
>Then you're an idiot.

LOL. And a big fuck you too!

> You may as well make the same observation of every religion,
> every superstition, every palm reading scam, every
> chicken-killing entrails-reading-based cancer cure scam,
> every talk to your dead granny
>psychic scam.

I am not aware of any clinical data that supports or refutes
these methods. See. That's the bit you missed in your
knee-jerk squeal to announce what a fool you are to the world.

>Do you believe that there are hot girls waiting for your
>call? Is there no stupid scam that you don't apologetically
>shrink from dismissing? No? OK doofus, name ONE. Show us that
>the guy who has no "strong opinion" on homeopathy has a
>"strong opinion" on *anything*. My money says you don't.

Where's your money? I have a strong opinion that you're a
narrow-minded bigot who hasn't got the brains god gave a gnat
nor the guts to sign her own name. Howzzat?

George M. Carter

[Tech27]

"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:JIo8e.4$Jg5.1382@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:39:16 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>> (David Wright) wrote:
>>>(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone
>>>selling high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big
>>>bucks for either water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending
>>>on the nature of the remedy.)

Trust me. There is no alcohol or sugar in homeopathetic
remedies. Those substances might have some effect, however
small, upon ones body. The hallmarks of of dilluting a
microgram of anything into a volume of water equivalent to the
Pacific Ocean is that is does fuck all. Nothing. Zip. Squat.
It doesn't even change some transcendental vibrational engergy
of the water, as some homeos maintain.

>>
>> Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your
>> statement. I have no strong opinion one way or the other on
>> the system of homeopathy.

SHOW ME ONE, JUST ONE, REFERENCE to any so called clinical
data that supports this. There is none. (And I don't want to
hear about the paper published by the Going Silly Institute of
Helsinki about a study using their "transcendental
vibrational" study using lingonberries suspended in a pot of
really hot homeo tea water!).

>
> Then you're an idiot. You may as well make the same
> observation of every religion, every superstition, every
> palm reading scam, every chicken-killing
> entrails-reading-based cancer cure scam, every talk to your
> dead granny psychic scam. Do you believe that there are hot
> girls waiting for your call? Is there no stupid scam that
> you don't apologetically shrink from dismissing? No? OK
> doofus, name ONE. Show us that the guy who has no "strong
> opinion" on homeopathy has a "strong opinion" on *anything*.
> My money says you don't.

....but what do you REALLY think? (-'

>
> moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.
>> You may as well make the same observation of every
>> religion, every superstition, every palm reading scam,
>> every chicken-killing entrails-reading-based cancer cure
>> scam, every talk to your dead granny
>>psychic scam.
>
> I am not aware of any clinical data that supports or
> refutes these methods. See. That's the bit you missed in
> your knee-jerk squeal to announce what a fool you are to
> the world.

"Clinical data" isn't required to form the basis of an opinion
that you can't have a conversation with dead people.
>
>>Do you believe that there are hot girls waiting for your
>>call? Is there no stupid scam that you don't apologetically
>>shrink from dismissing? No? OK doofus, name ONE. Show us
>>that the guy who has no "strong opinion" on homeopathy has a
>>"strong opinion" on *anything*. My money says you don't.
>
> Where's your money? I have a strong opinion that you're a
> narrow-minded bigot who hasn't got the brains god gave a
> gnat nor the guts to sign her own name. Howzzat?

Like I said, you can't do it, can you?

moo

[Tech27]

"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Ygy8e.215$Jg5.84509@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.

>> I am not aware of any clinical data that supports or
>> refutes these methods. See. That's the bit you missed in
>> your knee-jerk squeal to announce what a fool you are to
>> the world.

As opposed to your atrophied brain synapses prompting you to
proclaim that the lack of contrary evidence is somehow
significant. As for homeopathy, there are reams of information
substantiating the utter nonsence of it all.

>>> Where's your money? I have a strong opinion that you're a
>> narrow-minded bigot who hasn't got the brains god gave a
>> gnat nor the guts to sign her own name. Howzzat?

Good point. When at a dead loss for anything intelligent to
say revert to well worn tactic of calling someone stupid. Very
good point about signing your real name in newsgroups. THAT,
of course, is the crux of homeopathy.

[Gmcarter]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:53:41 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.
>>> You may as well make the same observation of every
>>> religion, every superstition, every palm reading scam,
>>> every chicken-killing entrails-reading-based cancer cure
>>> scam, every talk to your dead granny
>>>psychic scam.
>>
>> I am not aware of any clinical data that supports or
>> refutes these methods. See. That's the bit you missed in
>> your knee-jerk squeal to announce what a fool you are to
>> the world.
>
>"Clinical data" isn't required to form the basis of an
>opinion that you can't have a conversation with dead people.

No. So chemotherapy is an UTTER failure because most people
with pancreatic cancer are dead. Based on the narrow confines
of your logic, I can only presume that is what you believe.

>>>Do you believe that there are hot girls waiting for your
>>>call? Is there no stupid scam that you don't apologetically
>>>shrink from dismissing? No? OK doofus, name ONE. Show us
>>>that the guy who has no "strong opinion" on homeopathy has
>>>a "strong opinion" on *anything*. My money says you don't.
>>
>> Where's your money? I have a strong opinion that you're a
>> narrow-minded bigot who hasn't got the brains god gave a
>> gnat nor the guts to sign her own name. Howzzat?
>
>Like I said, you can't do it, can you?

I can do lots of things!

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:54:40 -0400, "tech27"
<tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:

>
>"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:Ygy8e.215$Jg5.84509@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.
>
>>> I am not aware of any clinical data that supports or
>>> refutes these methods. See. That's the bit you missed in
>>> your knee-jerk squeal to announce what a fool you are to
>>> the world.
>
>As opposed to your atrophied brain synapses prompting you to
>proclaim that the lack of contrary evidence is somehow
>significant. As for homeopathy, there are reams of
>information substantiating the utter nonsence of it all.

LOL...then please feel free to share some of those data and
not merely your ad hominems!

Clearly, others disagree with you. There are some data
indicating that certain homeopathic interventions appear to
have efficacy.

>>>> Where's your money? I have a strong opinion that you're a
>>> narrow-minded bigot who hasn't got the brains god gave a
>>> gnat nor the guts to sign her own name. Howzzat?
>
>Good point. When at a dead loss for anything intelligent to
>say revert to well worn tactic of calling someone stupid.
>Very good point about signing your real name in newsgroups.
>THAT, of course, is the crux of homeopathy.

LOL...ah, who here also refers to atrophied synapses and
contributes not one item of support for his or her comments
(while remaining anonymous!)

Some data below. They come from PubMed. Ever heard of it? I
used the search term homeopathy. Got nearly 3000 hits. Some
seem to support some homeopathic remedies; some don't. Want to
review them?

George M. Carter

** Review article: Reilly D. Homeopathy: increasing scientific
validation. Altern Ther Health Med. 2005 Mar-Apr;11(2):28-31.
Centre for Integrative Care, Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital.

** An interesting one...

Bell IR, Lewis DA 2nd, Lewis SE, Schwartz GE, Brooks AJ, Scott
A, Baldwin CM. EEG alpha sensitization in individualized
homeopathic treatment of fibromyalgia. Int J Neurosci. 2004
Sep;114(9):1195-220.

Program in Integrative Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, The
Mel and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public Health,
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
ibell@u.arizona.edu

Fibromyalgia (FM) patients show evidence of
sensitizability in pain pathways and
electroencephalographic (EEG) alterations. One proposed
mechanism for the claimed effects of homeopathy, a form
of complementary medicine used for FM, is time-dependent
sensitization (TDS, progressive amplification) of host
responses. This study examined possible
sensitization-related changes in EEG relative alpha
magnitude during a clinical trial of homeopathy in FM. A
4-month randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind
trial of daily orally administered individualized
homeopathy in physician-confirmed FM, with an additional
2-month optional crossover phase, included three
laboratory sessions, at baseline, 3 and 6 months (N =
48, age 49.2 +/-
9.8 years, 94% women). Nineteen leads of EEG relative alpha
magnitude at rest and during olfactory administration of
treatment and control solutions were evaluated in each
session. After 3 months, the active treatment group
significantly increased, while the placebo group decreased,
in global alpha-1 and alpha-2 during bottle sniffs over
sessions. At 6 months, the subset of active patients who
stayed on active continued to increase, while the
active-switch subgroup reversed direction in alpha
magnitude. Groups did not differ in resting alpha.
Consistent with the TDS hypothesis, sniff alpha-1 and
alpha-2 increases at 6 months versus baseline correlated
with total amount of time on active remedy over all
subjects (r = 0.45, p = .003), not with dose changes or
clinical outcomes in the active group. The findings suggest
initiation of TDS in relative EEG alpha magnitude by daily
oral administration of active homeopathic medicines versus
placebo, with laboratory elicitation by temporolimbic
olfactory stimulation or sniffing.

** Methodology for developing treatments:

Walach H, Sherr J, Schneider R, Shabi R, Bond A, Rieberer G.
Homeopathic proving symptoms: result of a local, non-local, or
placebo process? A blinded, placebo-controlled pilot study.
Homeopathy. 2004 Oct;93(4):179-85. Comment in: * Homeopathy.
2004 Oct;93(4):171-2.

Department of Evaluation Research in Complementary Medicine,
Samueli Institute--European Office, Institute for
Environmental Medicine and Hospital Epidemiology, University
Hospital Freiburg, Germany. walach@ukl.uni-freiburg.de

BACKGROUND: Homeopathic pathogenetic trials (HPTs)
(provings) are the pillar of homeopathy. Symptoms
experienced by healthy volunteers are used to find the
correct medicine for therapy. It is unclear whether these
symptoms are specific or due to placebo noise.
Furthermore, it is uncertain whether proving effects, if
present at all, are due to a local or non-local process
OBJECTIVES: To develop a test model which allows for
testing if homeopathic proving symptoms are caused by
placebo or causative mechanisms, and if these symptoms are
due to local or non-local processes. DESIGN: Randomised,
blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, with
1-week baseline and 2-weeks proving period. SUBJECTS: 11
healthy volunteers from two different homeopathic schools.
PROVING SUBSTANCE: An homeopathic medicine (Cantharis
30c), blindly chosen from 12 potential medicines, compared
to placebo. OUTCOME MEASURE: Number of symptoms typical
for the medicine in the experimental and control group
during baseline and proving period. RESULTS: During
baseline there was no difference in the number of typical
or atypical symptoms in either group. During the proving
period, both more typical symptoms for Cantharis (P= 0.03)
and more atypical symptoms (P= 0.02) were observed
compared to baseline. Between-group differences were not
significant. Effect sizes for the difference between the
proving and control group for typical symptoms was d=0.4,
and for atypical symptoms d=0.6. DISCUSSION: This proving
model could be valuable in studying the validity of
proving symptoms of homeopathic substances in healthy
volunteers. CONCLUSION: Homeopathic proving symptoms
appear to be specific to the medicine and do not seem to
be due to a local process. Since this was a pilot study
using a small number of provers, rival hypotheses cannot
be ruled out and the study needs replication.

** Efficacy in asthma in one study:

White A, Slade P, Hunt C, Hart A, Ernst E Individualised
homeopathy as an adjunct in the treatment of childhood asthma:
a randomised placebo controlled trial. Thorax. 2003
Apr;58(4):317-21.

Comment in: * Thorax. 2003 Sep;58(9):826-7; author
replies-827- 828,

Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, University
of Exeter, Exeter EX2 4NT, UK. adrian.white@pms.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: Homeopathy is frequently used to treat asthma
in children. In the common classical form of homeopathy,
prescriptions are individualised for each patient. There
has been no rigorous investigation into this form of
treatment for asthma. METHODS: In a randomised, double
blind, placebo controlled trial the effects of
individualised homeopathic remedies were compared with
placebo medication in 96 children with mild to moderate
asthma as an adjunct to conventional treatment. The main
outcome measure was the active quality of living subscale
of the Childhood Asthma Questionnaire administered at
baseline and follow up at 12 months. Other outcome
measures included other subscales of the same
questionnaire, peak flow rates, use of medication, symptom
scores, days off school, asthma events, global assessment
of change, and adverse reactions. RESULTS: There were no
clinically relevant or statistically significant changes
in the active quality of life score. Other subscales,
notably those measuring severity, indicated relative
improvements but the sizes of the effects were small.
There were no differences between the groups for other
measures. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides no evidence
that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by
experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to
placebo in improving the quality of life of children with
mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional
treatment in primary care.

** Trend for efficacy but not strong evidence (how many
allopathic clinical studies have similar results? Would such
results render all of allopathic medicine invalid??)

Weatherley-Jones E, Nicholl JP, Thomas KJ, Parry GJ,
McKendrick MW, Green ST, Stanley PJ, Lynch SP. A randomised,
controlled, triple-blind trial of the efficacy of homeopathic
treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 2004
Feb;56(2):189-97. Comment in: * J Psychosom Res. 2004
Nov;57(5):503; author reply 504.

Medical Care Research Unit, School of Health and Related
Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent
Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.
e.weatherley-jones@sheffield.ac.uk

OBJECTIVE: There is no management regime for chronic
fatigue syndrome (CFS) that has been found to be
universally beneficial and no treatment can be considered
a "cure". Patients with CFS may use complementary and
alternative medicine (CAM). Our aim was to evaluate
homeopathic treatment in reducing subjective symptoms of
CFS. METHOD: Using a triple-blind design (patient and
homeopath blind to group assignment and data analyst
blind to group until after initial analyses to reduce the
possibility of bias due to data analyst), we randomly
assigned patients to homeopathic medicine or identical
placebo. One hundred and three patients meeting the
Oxford criteria for CFS were recruited from two
specialist hospital out patient departments. Patients had
monthly consultations with a professional homeopath for 6
months. Main outcome measures were scores on the
subscales of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI)
and proportions of each group attaining clinically
significant improvements on each subscale. Secondary
outcome measures were the Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS) and
the Functional Limitations Profile (FLP). Ninety-two
patients completed treatment in the trial (47 homeopathic
treatment, 45 placebo). Eighty-six patients returned
fully or partially completed posttreatment outcome
measures (41 homeopathic treatment group who completed
treatment, 2 homeopathic treatment group who did not
complete treatment, 38 placebo group who completed
treatment, and 5 placebo group who did not complete
treatment). RESULTS: Seventeen of 103 patients withdrew
from treatment or were lost to follow-up. Patients in the
homeopathic medicine group showed significantly more
improvement on the MFI general fatigue subscale (one of
the primary outcome measures) and the FLP physical
subscale but not on other subscales. Although group
differences were not statistically significant on four
out of the five MFI subscales (the primary outcome
measures), more people in the homeopathic medicine group
showed clinically significant improvement. More people in
the homeopathic medicine group showed clinical
improvement on all primary outcomes (relative risk=2.75,
P=.09). CONCLUSIONS: There is weak but equivocal evidence
that the effects of homeopathic medicine are superior to
placebo. Results also suggest that there may be
nonspecific benefits from the homeopathic consultation.
Further studies are needed to determine whether these
differences hold in larger samples.

** An odd study--I'd be curious about a study of self-selected
over-the-counter cold remedies done in this kind of a study.
But one example of several where little/no efficacy was found.

Steinsbekk A, Bentzen N, Fonnebo V, Lewith G. Self treatment
with one of three self selected, ultramolecular homeopathic
medicines for the prevention of upper respiratory tract
infections in children. A double-blind randomized placebo
controlled trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005 Apr;59(4):447-55.

Department of Public Health and General Practice,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU),
Trondheim, Norway.

Aims Homeopathic medicines are frequently purchased over
the counter (OTC). Respiratory complaints are the most
frequent reason for such purchases. Children with upper
respiratory tract infection (URTI) are frequent users of
homeopathy. This study investigates the effect of self
treatment with one of three self selected ultramolecular
homeopathic medicines for the prevention of childhood
URTI. Methods A double-blind randomized parallel group
placebo controlled trial was carried out in 251 children
below the age of 10 years, recruited by post from those
previously diagnosed with URTI when attending a casualty
department. The children were randomly assigned to receive
either placebo or ultramolecular homeopathic medicines in
C-30 potency (diluted 10(-60)) administered twice weekly
for 12 weeks. Parents chose the medicine based on
simplified constitutional indications for the three
medicines most frequently prescribed by Norwegian
homeopaths for this group of patients. The main outcome
measure relates to the prevention of new episodes of URTI
measured with median total symptom score over 12 weeks.
Results There was no difference in the predefined primary
outcome between the two groups (P = 0.733). Median URTI
scores over 12 weeks in the homeopathic medicine group
were 26.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 16.3, 43.7) and
for placebo 25.0 (95% CI
10.2, 38.4). There was no statistical difference between the
two groups in median number of days with URTI symptoms or
in the use of conventional medication/care. Conclusions In
this study there was no effect over placebo for self
treatment with one of three self selected, ultramolecular
homeopathic medicines in preventing childhood URTI. This
can be due to the lack of effect of the highly diluted
homeopathic medicines or the process of selection and type
of medicines.

** Why not look for yourself?

[Gmcarter]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:13:37 -0400, "tech27"
<tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:

...
>>> Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your
>>> statement. I have no strong opinion one way or the other
>>> on the system of homeopathy.
>
>SHOW ME ONE, JUST ONE, REFERENCE to any so called clinical
>data that supports this. There

I posted several studies--there are nearly 3000 hits on PubMed
(not a complete database either) when entering homeopathy.

Some of the clinical studies (and you can narrow the search to
human/RCTs, of course) show efficacy. Others don't.

Does that PROVE homeopathy works? Or that it works based on
the principles outlined by its practitioners?

No. Positive studies merely provide evidence. For some kind of
activity. Placebo? Perhaps--but if it works, it does lend
itself to further investigation. The kids in the example below
would probably agree.

If you want to stay emotional and squeal and scream invective
and curse me for being idiot, knock yerself out, kiddo!

George M. Carter

** White A, Slade P, Hunt C, Hart A, Ernst E. Individualised
homeopathy as an adjunct in the treatment of childhood asthma:
a randomised placebo controlled trial. Thorax. 2003
Apr;58(4):317-21.

Comment in:* Thorax. 2003 Sep;58(9):826-7; author reply
827-828.

Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, University
of Exeter, Exeter EX2 4NT, UK. adrian.white@pms.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: Homeopathy is frequently used to treat asthma
in children. In the common classical form of homeopathy,
prescriptions are individualised for each patient. There
has been no rigorous investigation into this form of
treatment for asthma. METHODS: In a randomised, double
blind, placebo controlled trial the effects of
individualised homeopathic remedies were compared with
placebo medication in 96 children with mild to moderate
asthma as an adjunct to conventional treatment. The main
outcome measure was the active quality of living subscale
of the Childhood Asthma Questionnaire administered at
baseline and follow up at 12 months. Other outcome
measures included other subscales of the same
questionnaire, peak flow rates, use of medication, symptom
scores, days off school, asthma events, global assessment
of change, and adverse reactions. RESULTS: There were no
clinically relevant or statistically significant changes
in the active quality of life score. Other subscales,
notably those measuring severity, indicated relative
improvements but the sizes of the effects were small.
There were no differences between the groups for other
measures. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides no evidence
that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by
experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to
placebo in improving the quality of life of children with
mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional
treatment in primary care.

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:13:37 -0400, "tech27"
> <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your
>>>> statement. I have no strong opinion one way or the other
>>>> on the system of homeopathy.
>>
>>SHOW ME ONE, JUST ONE, REFERENCE to any so called clinical
>>data that supports this. There
>
> I posted several studies--there are nearly 3000 hits on
> PubMed (not a complete database either) when entering
> homeopathy.
>
> Some of the clinical studies (and you can narrow the search
> to human/RCTs, of course) show efficacy. Others don't.

Not ONE independently replicated study. People, like you, who
eschew common sense, are forever noting that there is evidence
of some sort for almost any claim, no matter how lunatic.
There is not ONE replicated study showing that ANYONE using
ANY fair means can differentiate between a homeopathic remedy
and the original dilute. For a rational person, this would
indicate that it's crap. This has been going on for 200 years.
The arguments for homeopathy mimic the "arguments" supporting
various religions. You've been asked, a couple times, if you
demonstrate that you have any critical thinking skills by
naming some therapies or alt med claims that you would dismiss
as nonsense. You haven't been able to. It's like asking a
fundamental religious kook if there can possibly be anything
wrong with their religious views.

moo

[Tech27]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ckv661l1vjro8pjic7sgfm9pngdlo7cnbh@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:54:40 -0400, "tech27"
> <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:
>
> LOL...then please feel free to share some of those data and
> not merely your ad hominems!

The information is readily available on the net. You can also
read about the failure of an agreed upon test/experiment done
by advocates of homeopathy and the Randi Institute. If you
really want to learn, go and do the research with a little
objectivity. It makes no sense to waste time and effort with
this kind of "you show me NO you show ME" exchange. I HAVE
done my homework and believe that it is bullshit, based on the
information I was able to find. If, on the other hand, you
have any complelling information to the contrary, I am open
enough to look into it and take it into consideration. Hell,
if you can provide any really good proof, I'd would have to
change my mind. I think that's pretty fair.

>
> Clearly, others disagree with you. There are some data
> indicating that certain homeopathic interventions appear to
> have efficacy.

Sure "others" will disagree. Homeopaths for sure. But again,
show me some good data to support your position - empirical
evidence, not anectodal experiences.

> LOL...ah, who here also refers to atrophied synapses and
> contributes not one item of support for his or her comments
> (while remaining anonymous!)
>
> Some data below. They come from PubMed. Ever heard of it? I
> used the search term homeopathy. Got nearly 3000 hits. Some
> seem to support some homeopathic remedies; some don't. Want
> to review them?
>
> George M. Carter
>
<snip articles>

Okay, these sources, the validity of which I will assume
is good (ie-not a study commissioned by a Homeopathic
interest group),

While the information you presented does appear to support
your claims, I can't help but notice the recurring use of
terms like "may" "appears to" "weak link' etc. Okay, not bad
but certainly not conclusive.

Below I provide contrary positions. My problem is that a)
claims by homeopaths that although the dillution of certain
additives cannot be measured, the do somehow change the
"molecular structure" of the water, or something to that
effect. THIS was not proven to exist, in a test conducted by
pro and con parties. b)Maybe it is possible that SOME potions
MIGHT have an effect, but I think that it is far too early to
say that ALL homeopathic remedies work. At this time, the
evidence is NOT conlcusive enough to point to the remedies as
the the cause of any positive effects.

... I think that it is an excellent summation of what
homeopathy is, and was written ... supporting the use of
homeopathy in the British medical community. ...
www.randi.org/jr/02-02-2001.html - 32k - Cached - Similar
pages Commentary, April 4, 2003 - Homeopathy Fails in the UK
Again, This ... The James Randi Educational Foundation is a
non-profit learning resource aimed at promoting critical
thinking everywhere. www.randi.org/jr/040403.html - 32k -
Cached - Similar pages

JREF Forums - Studies supporting homeopathy ? ... date there
is no evidence that homeopathy is any more effective than
placebo ... that the clinical effects of homeopathy are
completely due to placebo. ... forums.randi.org/showthread.
php?s=&postid=1870619770 - 100k - Cached - Similar pages

Commentary, April 25, 2003 - Progress in the UK?, Official ...
... The Mail mentioned that two major studies are to be done
on homeopathy, ... Some critics are saying that any
state-funded research into homeopathy would ...
www.randi.org/jr/042503.html - 44k - Cached - Similar pages

Commentary, March 7, 2003 - Thomas Jefferson on Stones and ...
... "CRYSTAL homeopathy combines the principles of homeopathic
medicine with the healing ... He singled out the claims made
for crystal homeopathy as being ...
www.randi.org/jr/030703.html - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

Commentary, October 24, 2003 &- The Paranormal Pyramid, Seth
Gets ... ... spiritualism, homeopathy, prophecy, and
pseudoscience comforted with a steady ... Homeopathy, by
itself, is total claptrap, and here it's being inserted ...
www.randi.org/jr/102403.html - 36k - Cached - Similar pages

Commentary, March 14, 2003 - Honesty in Science, Bin Laden in
the ... ... comments on last week's item concerning a Daily
Mail (UK) article on homeopathy: ... "Explanations for why
homeopathy works range from the idea that ...
www.randi.org/jr/031403.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

Commentary, May 21, UK Nonsense-Again, Heretic Speaks Up,
Ignored ... ... "wellness" section called "Healing with
Homeopathy" by Alan Pell Crawford. This "news" feature
portrays homeopathy as a cost-effective alternative to ...
www.randi.org/jr/052104uk.html - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

Commentary, November 29, 2002 - Horizon's Homeopathic Coup ...
... tests of the claims of Dr. Jacques Benveniste in regard to
homeopathy, ... testing had resulted in total failure,
homeopathy would immediately have ...
www.randi.org/jr/112902.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages

Commentary, September 5, 2003 - Benveniste and Josephson on
... ... Research by Benveniste which appeared to show that
homeopathy was a viable ... Indeed, subsequent tests of
Benveniste's claims, and of homeopathy in ...
www.randi.org/jr/090503.html - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

[Gmcarter]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:49:27 -0400, "tech27"
<tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:

>
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:ckv661l1vjro8pjic7sgfm9pngdlo7cnbh@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:54:40 -0400, "tech27"
>> <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:
>>
>> LOL...then please feel free to share some of those data and
>> not merely your ad hominems!
>
>The information is readily available on the net.

Oh, so you can't.

>You can also read about the failure of an agreed upon
>test/experiment done by advocates of homeopathy and the Randi
>Institute.

What and where is the Randi Institute? Do they study Orgone
Boxes there?

>If you really want to learn, go and do the research with a
>little objectivity.

Gosh, when I suggested that to others, they insisted I was
unable to provide the genuine proof they needed and thus lost
the argument! Oh, well.

>It makes no sense to waste time and effort with this kind of
>"you show me NO you show ME" exchange. I HAVE done my
>homework and believe that it is bullshit, based on the
>information I was able to find.

Excellent. If that works for you, carry on with your life and
go in peace.

>If, on the other hand, you have any complelling information
>to the contrary, I am open enough to look into it and take it
>into consideration. Hell, if you can provide any really good
>proof, I'd would have to change my mind. I think that's
>pretty fair.

LOL...I see, I have to prove homeopathy works for you? Nope. I
don't. I accept that in your opinion, the system is of no
utility. That's your option.

For me, I remain agnostic about it.

>>
>> Clearly, others disagree with you. There are some data
>> indicating that certain homeopathic interventions appear to
>> have efficacy.
>
>Sure "others" will disagree. Homeopaths for sure. But again,
>show me some good data to support your position - empirical
>evidence, not anectodal experiences.

Ah. I did provide some of the data from PubMed.

>> LOL...ah, who here also refers to atrophied synapses and
>> contributes not one item of support for his or her comments
>> (while remaining anonymous!)
>>
>> Some data below. They come from PubMed. Ever heard of it? I
>> used the search term homeopathy. Got nearly 3000 hits. Some
>> seem to support some homeopathic remedies; some don't. Want
>> to review them?
>>
George M. Carter
>>
><snip articles>
>
>Okay, these sources, the validity of which I will assume
>is good (ie-not a study commissioned by a Homeopathic
>interest group),

LOL....again. What about an Allopathic interest group? What
would that look like?

>While the information you presented does appear to support
>your claims, I can't help but notice the recurring use of
>terms like "may" "appears to" "weak link' etc. Okay, not bad
>but certainly not conclusive.

Agreed. Terms OFTEN employed in allopathic studies.

>Below I provide contrary positions. My problem is that a)
>claims by homeopaths that although the dillution of certain
>additives cannot be measured, the do somehow change the
>"molecular structure" of the water, or something to that
>effect. THIS was not proven to exist, in a test conducted by
>pro and con parties. b)Maybe it is possible that SOME potions
>MIGHT have an effect, but I think that it is far too early to
>say that ALL homeopathic remedies work. At this time, the
>evidence is NOT conlcusive enough to point to the remedies as
>the the cause of any positive effects.

I would NEVER say ALL homeopathic remedies "work" any more
than I would say ALL allopathic or Ayurvedic or Siddha
medicines work.

What's weird is that ANY homeopathic medicines seem to work,
according to some of the data.

>... I think that it is an excellent summation of what
>homeopathy is, and was written ... supporting the use of
>homeopathy in the British medical community. ...
>www.randi.org/jr/02-02-2001.html - 32k - Cached - Similar
>pages Commentary, April 4, 2003 - Homeopathy Fails in the UK
>Again, This ... The James Randi Educational Foundation is a
>non-profit learning resource aimed at promoting critical
>thinking everywhere. www.randi.org/jr/040403.html - 32k -
>Cached - Similar pages

Wow--I do NOT trust this website or this guy from what I have
seen so far!! He seems like a fellow who has had his mind set
in stone. He might be correct, but there's something of the
shill about him. He reminds of people like Stephen Barrett and
Hulda Clark.

Snipping the rest of his commentary which is merely his
opinion. He is more than entitled to it, of course!

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:11:51 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:13:37 -0400, "tech27"
>> <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your
>>>>> statement. I have no strong opinion one way or the other
>>>>> on the system of homeopathy.
>>>
>>>SHOW ME ONE, JUST ONE, REFERENCE to any so called clinical
>>>data that supports this. There
>>
>> I posted several studies--there are nearly 3000 hits on
>> PubMed (not a complete database either) when entering
>> homeopathy.
>>
>> Some of the clinical studies (and you can narrow the search
>> to human/RCTs, of course) show efficacy. Others don't.
>
>Not ONE independently replicated study. People, like you,
>who eschew common sense, are forever noting that there is
>evidence of some sort for almost any claim, no matter how
>lunatic. There is not ONE replicated study showing that
>ANYONE using ANY fair means can differentiate between a
>homeopathic remedy and the original dilute. For a rational
>person, this would indicate that it's crap. This has been
>going on for 200 years. The arguments for homeopathy mimic
>the "arguments" supporting various religions. You've been
>asked, a couple times, if you demonstrate that you have any
>critical thinking skills by naming some therapies or alt
>med claims that you would dismiss as nonsense. You haven't
>been able to. It's like asking a fundamental religious kook
>if there can possibly be anything wrong with their
>religious views.

LOL...that's called shifting the goalposts, dear. I don't KNOW
if there is one replicated study. There were 3000 hits on
PubMed--so there MAY be. Yet you state this unequivocally.

In any case, there is NEVER any proof for anything. There is
merely a preponderance of evidence.

The fact that even ONE homeopathic remedy appears to work is a
fascinating observation. Why should it? Indeed, I well
understand the skepticism....yet, using a gold standard
methodology, several studies have shown benefit. Several
others have shown no effect whatsoever, of course (just as
with allopathic medicine).

If ANY homeopathic remedy works, that is sufficient for
clinical use. And why not give it a try? Kids with asthma
may benefit.

The next question of WHY it works remains open. Due to the
principles outlined in the homeopathic approach? Due to a
less obvious
psychological effect? Due to methodological flaws in the
study? I am very curious about that as well.

But again, you have decided how you feel about homeopathy and
you're more than welcome to feel that way!

George M. Carter

[Jeff]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dni961l83eub2jvseuaunjutl26bhvgs07@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:11:51 -0400, "Happy Dog"
> <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:13:37 -0400, "tech27"
>>> <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>> Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your
>>>>>> statement. I have no strong opinion one way or the
>>>>>> other on the system of homeopathy.
>>>>
>>>>SHOW ME ONE, JUST ONE, REFERENCE to any so called clinical
>>>>data that supports this. There
>>>
>>> I posted several studies--there are nearly 3000 hits on
>>> PubMed (not a complete database either) when entering
>>> homeopathy.
>>>
>>> Some of the clinical studies (and you can narrow the
>>> search to human/RCTs, of course) show efficacy. Others
>>> don't.
>>
>>Not ONE independently replicated study. People, like you,
>>who eschew common sense, are forever noting that there is
>>evidence of some sort for almost any claim, no matter how
>>lunatic. There is not ONE replicated study showing that
>>ANYONE using ANY fair means can differentiate between a
>>homeopathic remedy and the original dilute. For a rational
>>person, this would indicate that it's crap. This has been
>>going on for 200 years. The arguments for homeopathy mimic
>>the "arguments" supporting various religions. You've been
>>asked, a couple times, if you demonstrate that you have any
>>critical thinking skills by naming some therapies or alt
>>med claims that you would dismiss as nonsense. You haven't
>>been able to. It's like asking a fundamental religious kook
>>if there can possibly be anything wrong with their
>>religious views.
>
> LOL...that's called shifting the goalposts, dear. I don't
> KNOW if there is one replicated study. There were 3000 hits
> on PubMed--so there MAY be. Yet you state this
> unequivocally.
>
> In any case, there is NEVER any proof for anything. There is
> merely a preponderance of evidence.

True. And the prepunderance of evidence shows that homeopathy
doesn't work. The basic science, chemistry and physics
including quantum physics, provide absolutely no reason why
water should have any memory. The biochemistry and physiology
and pharmacology show that the fewer molecules of a substance,
the less effective that it is. And the studies that were done
to support homeopathy show they they don't work. Can you prove
that homeopathy doesn't work? No. But the prepounderance of
evidence shows it doesn't work.

> The fact that even ONE homeopathic remedy appears to work is
> a fascinating observation. Why should it? Indeed, I well
> understand the skepticism....yet, using a gold standard
> methodology, several studies have shown benefit. Several
> others have shown no effect whatsoever, of course (just as
> with allopathic medicine).

No just like allopathic medicine. For example, for most cancer
therapies, there is a mechanism of action that explains why
the treatment work as well as clinical studies that show that
the treatment works.

And for asthma, we understand how the medications work to
treat asthma.
E.g,, steroids depress inflammation and beta agonists cause
the brochioles to dilate.

> If ANY homeopathic remedy works, that is sufficient for
> clinical use. And why not give it a try? Kids with asthma
> may benefit.

Because the treatments don't do anythng. So instead of
getting a child useful trreatment, you are doing nothing. And
wasting money.

> The next question of WHY it works remains open. Due to the
> principles outlined in the homeopathic approach? Due to a
> less obvious
> psychological effect? Due to methodological flaws in the
> study? I am very curious about that as well.

Actually, it has yet to be shown that homeopathy works.

> But again, you have decided how you feel about homeopathy
> and you're more than welcome to feel that way!

Yeah, I will choose proven treatments for potentially deadly
illness any day.

Jeff

> George M. Carter

[Tech27]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:q8i961llsu98k7s6rsmljrks1j93naod76@4ax.com...
> What and where is the Randi Institute? Do they study Orgone
> Boxes there?
http://www.randi.org/

Admittedly, they are basically in the business of disproving
claims. However, their methodology is pretty good. For the
homeopath stuff they let the homeo advocates prescribe what
they were going to prove and how it should be done, then both
parties observe the testing process and the results as done by
independent technicians.

>>It makes no sense to waste time and effort with this kind of
>>"you show me NO you show ME" exchange. I HAVE done my
>>homework and believe that it is bullshit, based on the
>>information I was able to find.
>
> Excellent. If that works for you, carry on with your life
> and go in peace.
>
>>If, on the other hand, you have any complelling information
>>to the contrary, I am open enough to look into it and take
>>it into consideration. Hell, if you can provide any really
>>good proof, I'd would have to change my mind. I think that's
>>pretty fair.
>
> LOL...I see, I have to prove homeopathy works for you? Nope.
> I don't. I accept that in your opinion, the system is of no
> utility. That's your option.

You've taken an negative position with me. I AM open to new or
compelling information, but since I can't possible find and
read EVERYTHING about any topic, I appreciate it when someone
can point me to definitive sources. Not asking you to do my
research for me, just asking if anything you've found is
better than what I have.

>>> Clearly, others disagree with you. There are some data
>>> indicating that certain homeopathic interventions appear
>>> to have efficacy.

I'm a skeptic. I'm not interested in what "others" think,
and the "appearance of efficacy" is not the same is
cause/effect proof.

Let's not belabour this any more. When the pig flies and shits
on my head, I will be the first to change my mind. (-;

> George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> Some of the clinical studies (and you can narrow the
>>> search to human/RCTs, of course) show efficacy. Others
>>> don't.
>>
>>Not ONE independently replicated study. People, like you,
>>who eschew common sense, are forever noting that there is
>>evidence of some sort for almost any claim, no matter how
>>lunatic. There is not ONE replicated study showing that
>>ANYONE using ANY fair means can differentiate between a
>>homeopathic remedy and the original dilute. For a rational
>>person, this would indicate that it's crap. This has been
>>going on for 200 years. The arguments for homeopathy mimic
>>the "arguments" supporting various religions. You've been
>>asked, a couple times, if you demonstrate that you have any
>>critical thinking skills by naming some therapies or alt
>>med claims that you would dismiss as nonsense. You haven't
>>been able to. It's like asking a fundamental religious kook
>>if there can possibly be anything wrong with their
>>religious views.
>
> LOL...that's called shifting the goalposts, dear. I don't
> KNOW if there is one replicated study. There were 3000 hits
> on PubMed--so there MAY be. Yet you state this
> unequivocally.

Correct. And I stand by my claim. Advocates of Homeopathy
would shout an independent replication of the basic claims
from the rooftops.
>
> In any case, there is NEVER any proof for anything. There is
> merely a preponderance of evidence.

Oh, OK. So, the effects of gravity haven't been proven? Get
real. Homeopathy pushers claim that a fantastic and *easily*
observable phenomena exists. Yet not one person has reliably
demonstrated the ability to observe this phenomena or
explained how such a thing is possible.
>
> The fact that even ONE homeopathic remedy appears to work is
> a fascinating observation. Why should it? Indeed, I well
> understand the skepticism....yet, using a gold standard
> methodology, several studies have shown benefit. Several
> others have shown no effect whatsoever, of course (just as
> with allopathic medicine).

It isn't that simple. NONE have been replicated. This after
200 years of trying. If anything this idiotic is happening in
"allopathic" medicine, it's crap as well.
>
> If ANY homeopathic remedy works, that is sufficient for
> clinical use. And why not give it a try? Kids with asthma
> may benefit.

They may benefit from literally hundreds of other things that
have beneficial claimed effects but don't work. Got time to
try them all? Is there ANYTHING that has claimed benefits that
you wouldn't try? The fact that you refuse to answer this
suggests that you have few critical thinking skills. C'mon,
prove me wrong (sorry, show some evidence to the contrary).
Name some alternative medicine claims that you think are crap.
You can't do it, can you?
>
> The next question of WHY it works remains open. Due to the
> principles outlined in the homeopathic approach? Due to a
> less obvious
> psychological effect? Due to methodological flaws in the
> study? I am very curious about that as well.

The latter is, by far, the most likely. It's just bad science.
And the people who sell billions of dollars woth of the stuff
make zero effort to study it further.
>
> But again, you have decided how you feel about homeopathy
> and you're more than welcome to feel that way!

I follow the evidence. It's saying that there is no
independently observable effect. I know you don't understand
how this process works because you're a credulous twit. But,
again, it's easy to show I'm wrong. Just name a few
alternative.claims that you think are crap and explain why.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>... I think that it is an excellent summation of what
>>homeopathy is, and was written ... supporting the use of
>>homeopathy in the British medical community. ...
>>www.randi.org/jr/02-02-2001.html - 32k - Cached - Similar
>>pages Commentary, April 4, 2003 - Homeopathy Fails in the UK
>>Again, This ... The James Randi Educational Foundation is a
>>non-profit learning resource aimed at promoting critical
>>thinking everywhere. www.randi.org/jr/040403.html - 32k -
>>Cached - Similar pages
>
> Wow--I do NOT trust this website or this guy from what I
> have seen so far!! He seems like a fellow who has had his
> mind set in stone. He might be correct, but there's
> something of the shill about him. He reminds of people like
> Stephen Barrett and Hulda Clark.

What, exactly, is your problem with Hulda Clark? Try to
be specific.

moo

[Tech27]

"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5H99e.3722$9G.307226@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>>
>> The next question of WHY it works remains open. Due to the
>> principles outlined in the homeopathic approach? Due to a
>> less obvious
>> psychological effect? Due to methodological flaws in the
>> study? I am very curious about that as well.

My constipation was relieved when they pulled the feeding tube
out of the vegetable called Shiavo. Due to some principle?
Psychological effect? Are you curious about this anecdotal
experience?

> The latter is, by far, the most likely. It's just bad
> science. And the people who sell billions of dollars woth of
> the stuff make zero effort to study it further.

It's not "bad" science, it just isn't any kind of science.

[David Wrig]

In article <dni961l83eub2jvseuaunjutl26bhvgs07@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:11:51 -0400, "Happy Dog"
><happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:13:37 -0400, "tech27"
>>> <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>> Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your
>>>>>> statement. I have no strong opinion one way or the
>>>>>> other on the system of homeopathy.
>>>>
>>>>SHOW ME ONE, JUST ONE, REFERENCE to any so called clinical
>>>>data that supports this. There
>>>
>>> I posted several studies--there are nearly 3000 hits on
>>> PubMed (not a complete database either) when entering
>>> homeopathy.
>>>
>>> Some of the clinical studies (and you can narrow the
>>> search to human/RCTs, of course) show efficacy. Others
>>> don't.
>>
>>Not ONE independently replicated study. People, like you,
>>who eschew common sense, are forever noting that there is
>>evidence of some sort for almost any claim, no matter how
>>lunatic. There is not ONE replicated study showing that
>>ANYONE using ANY fair means can differentiate between a
>>homeopathic remedy and the original dilute. For a rational
>>person, this would indicate that it's crap. This has been
>>going on for 200 years. The arguments for homeopathy mimic
>>the "arguments" supporting various religions. You've been
>>asked, a couple times, if you demonstrate that you have any
>>critical thinking skills by naming some therapies or alt
>>med claims that you would dismiss as nonsense. You haven't
>>been able to. It's like asking a fundamental religious kook
>>if there can possibly be anything wrong with their
>>religious views.
>
>LOL...that's called shifting the goalposts, dear. I don't
>KNOW if there is one replicated study. There were 3000 hits
>on PubMed--so there MAY be. Yet you state this unequivocally.
>
>In any case, there is NEVER any proof for anything. There is
>merely a preponderance of evidence.
>
>The fact that even ONE homeopathic remedy appears to work is
>a fascinating observation. Why should it? Indeed, I well
>understand the skepticism....yet, using a gold standard
>methodology, several studies have shown benefit. Several
>others have shown no effect whatsoever, of course (just as
>with allopathic medicine).

Why should it, indeed? The most likely explanations are
experimentor error, and statistical coincidence (with the
typical 95% confidence level, in 1 out of 20 experiments,
it'll look as though the remedy outperformed placebo, even
though it really didn't).

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff
loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of
the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that
conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:44:13 -0400, "tech27"
<tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:

>
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:q8i961llsu98k7s6rsmljrks1j93naod76@4ax.com...
>> What and where is the Randi Institute? Do they study Orgone
>> Boxes there?
>http://www.randi.org/
>
>Admittedly, they are basically in the business of disproving
>claims. However, their methodology is pretty good. For the
>homeopath stuff they let the homeo advocates prescribe what
>they were going to prove and how it should be done, then both
>parties observe the testing process and the results as done
>by independent technicians.

That sounds bizarre. Is informed consent provided? Are these
double-blind, placebo-controlled studies? "Independent
technicians" - what qualifies them to evaluate a diagnosis
and/or any change?

It sounds even less reliable.

>>>It makes no sense to waste time and effort with this kind
>>>of "you show me NO you show ME" exchange. I HAVE done my
>>>homework and believe that it is bullshit, based on the
>>>information I was able to find.
>>
>> Excellent. If that works for you, carry on with your life
>> and go in peace.
>>
>>>If, on the other hand, you have any complelling information
>>>to the contrary, I am open enough to look into it and take
>>>it into consideration. Hell, if you can provide any really
>>>good proof, I'd would have to change my mind. I think
>>>that's pretty fair.
>>
>> LOL...I see, I have to prove homeopathy works for you?
>> Nope. I don't. I accept that in your opinion, the system is
>> of no utility. That's your option.
>
>You've taken an negative position with me. I AM open to new
>or compelling information, but since I can't possible find
>and read EVERYTHING about any topic, I appreciate it when
>someone can point me to definitive sources. Not asking you to
>do my research for me, just asking if anything you've found
>is better than what I have.

That's a fair statement. I started to provide some of the
information. Try PubMed if you wish to explore further.

>>>> Clearly, others disagree with you. There are some data
>>>> indicating that certain homeopathic interventions appear
>>>> to have efficacy.
>
>I'm a skeptic. I'm not interested in what "others" think,
>and the "appearance of efficacy" is not the same is
>cause/effect proof.

There is very little PROOF of anything in medicine. There is
NO proof that any drug works for everyone, for example. What
is out there, in really only about 25% of prescribed drugs, is
evidence of safety and efficacy among populations. Individual
results may vary. And the quality of that evidence varies from
weak to pretty compelling.

>Let's not belabour this any more. When the pig flies and
>shits on my head, I will be the first to change my mind. (-;

Wait--I thought you just said you had an open mind! Well--hey,
with genetic modifications and what not, you better be careful
about such wishes!! lol...

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:49:06 GMT, "Jeff"
<kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
>> In any case, there is NEVER any proof for anything. There
>> is merely a preponderance of evidence.
>
>True. And the prepunderance of evidence shows that homeopathy
>doesn't work.

I don't believe you've actually reviewed all the evidence.

>The basic science, chemistry and physics including quantum
>physics, provide absolutely no reason why water should have
>any memory.

Now you're confusing basic science with clinical outcomes.

Some would have said there is NO evidence that the earth
moves, short of an earthquake. And then folks claim it
ROTATES. And REVOLVES! Use your eyes! It's quite still and
calm.

>The biochemistry and physiology and pharmacology show that
>the fewer molecules of a substance, the less effective that
>it is. And the studies that were done to support homeopathy
>show they they don't work. Can you prove that homeopathy
>doesn't work? No. But the prepounderance of evidence shows it
>doesn't work.

You may well be correct. But, all I've pointed out, is that
there are some studies that show that certain nostrums for
certain indications appear to have efficacy.

I have NOT reviewed the data to know whether the positive
results have been duly replicated.

>> The fact that even ONE homeopathic remedy appears to work
>> is a fascinating observation. Why should it? Indeed, I well
>> understand the skepticism....yet, using a gold standard
>> methodology, several studies have shown benefit. Several
>> others have shown no effect whatsoever, of course (just as
>> with allopathic medicine).
>
>No just like allopathic medicine. For example, for most
>cancer therapies, there is a mechanism of action that
>explains why the treatment work as well as clinical studies
>that show that the treatment works.

LOL...nonsense. We have some dim ideas about mechanisms but I
think there is a LOT of hubris around that. What we knew in
the 70s about mechanisms of action has been VASTLY improved by
a range of techniques and we are getting more sophisiticated
and refined ideas. It is truly marvelous! But to think we have
nothing short of a LONG way to go to having a truly
comprehensive understanding of mechanisms of action and all
the various effects a drug may have is hubris.

>And for asthma, we understand how the medications work to
>treat asthma.
>E.g,, steroids depress inflammation and beta agonists cause
> the brochioles to dilate.

Those are broad effects....and corticosteroids have lots of
additional side effects that render them problematic.

I agree it is extremely important to understand the basic
priniciples of how things appear to work. But that is not
the same as making the observation that they appear to
have efficacy.

>> If ANY homeopathic remedy works, that is sufficient for
>> clinical use. And why not give it a try? Kids with asthma
>> may benefit.
>
>Because the treatments don't do anythng. So instead of
>getting a child useful trreatment, you are doing nothing. And
>wasting money.

Your mind is set! That's fine for you to say.

>> The next question of WHY it works remains open. Due to the
>> principles outlined in the homeopathic approach? Due to a
>> less obvious
>> psychological effect? Due to methodological flaws in the
>> study? I am very curious about that as well.
>
>Actually, it has yet to be shown that homeopathy works.

LOL. Actually, it has yet to be shown that allopathy works.

>> But again, you have decided how you feel about homeopathy
>> and you're more than welcome to feel that way!
>
>Yeah, I will choose proven treatments for potentially deadly
>illness any day.

What proven treatments?

Best of luck!

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:10:21 -0400, "tech27"
<tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:

>
>"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:5H99e.3722$9G.307226@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>>>
>>> The next question of WHY it works remains open. Due to the
>>> principles outlined in the homeopathic approach? Due to a
>>> less obvious
>>> psychological effect? Due to methodological flaws in the
>>> study? I am very curious about that as well.
>
>My constipation was relieved when they pulled the feeding
>tube out of the vegetable called Shiavo. Due to some
>principle? Psychological effect? Are you curious about this
>anecdotal experience?

I'm intrigued now more by your pschiatric state. Please, go
on.

>> The latter is, by far, the most likely. It's just bad
>> science. And the people who sell billions of dollars woth
>> of the stuff make zero effort to study it further.
>
>It's not "bad" science, it just isn't any kind of science.

I see. A double-blind, placebo-controlled and randomized study
no longer fits in the paradigm of "science" according to you?

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:16:10 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>>>... I think that it is an excellent summation of what
>>>homeopathy is, and was written ... supporting the use of
>>>homeopathy in the British medical community. ...
>>>www.randi.org/jr/02-02-2001.html - 32k - Cached - Similar
>>>pages Commentary, April 4, 2003 - Homeopathy Fails in the
>>>UK Again, This ... The James Randi Educational Foundation
>>>is a non-profit learning resource aimed at promoting
>>>critical thinking everywhere. www.randi.org/jr/040403.html
>>>- 32k - Cached - Similar pages
>>
>> Wow--I do NOT trust this website or this guy from what I
>> have seen so far!! He seems like a fellow who has had his
>> mind set in stone. He might be correct, but there's
>> something of the shill about him. He reminds of people like
>> Stephen Barrett and Hulda Clark.
>
>What, exactly, is your problem with Hulda Clark? Try to be
>specific.

She's an idiot?

Many problems. She claims to "cure" HIV with a mixture of
botanicals. In her book, she refers to a shift from p24
positive to negative as a sign of such cure--it is nothing of
the sort (certainly not in the early-mid 90s with the assays
used at the time for p24).

She uses unidentified species of Artemisia at VERY high
(untraditionally high) dosages. These can be dangerous. There
is little evidence that they have any effect on HIV (tho this
is anecdotal)--and some people got pretty sick that I know.

Finally, she claims AIDS is caused by some fluke no
parasitologist I've ever known has ever found.

In short, she makes a lot of claims that are ridiculous. Sort
of like the knee-jerk, reflexive bigots at quackwatch.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:43:53 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> Some of the clinical studies (and you can narrow the
>>>> search to human/RCTs, of course) show efficacy. Others
>>>> don't.
>>>
>>>Not ONE independently replicated study. People, like you,
>>>who eschew common sense, are forever noting that there is
>>>evidence of some sort for almost any claim, no matter how
>>>lunatic. There is not ONE replicated study showing that
>>>ANYONE using ANY fair means can differentiate between a
>>>homeopathic remedy and the original dilute. For a rational
>>>person, this would indicate that it's crap. This has been
>>>going on for 200 years. The arguments for homeopathy mimic
>>>the "arguments" supporting various religions. You've been
>>>asked, a couple times, if you demonstrate that you have any
>>>critical thinking skills by naming some therapies or alt
>>>med claims that you would dismiss as nonsense. You haven't
>>>been able to. It's like asking a fundamental religious kook
>>>if there can possibly be anything wrong with their
>>>religious views.
>>
>> LOL...that's called shifting the goalposts, dear. I don't
>> KNOW if there is one replicated study. There were 3000 hits
>> on PubMed--so there MAY be. Yet you state this
>> unequivocally.
>
>Correct. And I stand by my claim. Advocates of Homeopathy
>would shout an independent replication of the basic claims
>from the rooftops.

Perhaps they have shouted same. But you can claim anything you
like--given that you have not reviewed the data, your opinion
holds little sway for me.

I thus remain agnostic about whether homeopathic remedies are
worthwhile or not.

>> In any case, there is NEVER any proof for anything. There
>> is merely a preponderance of evidence.
>
>Oh, OK. So, the effects of gravity haven't been proven?
>Get real.

Gravity is a discrete phenomenon. Homeopathy is a system of
medicine, ostensibly.

>Homeopathy pushers claim that a fantastic and *easily*
>observable phenomena exists. Yet not one person has reliably
>demonstrated the ability to observe this phenomena or
>explained how such a thing is possible.

Ah--several groups have apparently demonstrated that the
phenomenon of homeopathy has some impact. They do have
explanations of how it is supposed to work. I do not know if
homeopaths have either developed testable questions to
investigate the mechanisms of action and, if so, whether those
hypotheses have been tested.

>> The fact that even ONE homeopathic remedy appears to work
>> is a fascinating observation. Why should it? Indeed, I well
>> understand the skepticism....yet, using a gold standard
>> methodology, several studies have shown benefit. Several
>> others have shown no effect whatsoever, of course (just as
>> with allopathic medicine).
>
>It isn't that simple. NONE have been replicated. This after
>200 years of trying. If anything this idiotic is happening in
>"allopathic" medicine, it's crap as well.

I'm glad to see your certainty. I'm sure it is refreshing for
you and inspires a sense of confidence!

>> If ANY homeopathic remedy works, that is sufficient for
>> clinical use. And why not give it a try? Kids with asthma
>> may benefit.
>
>They may benefit from literally hundreds of other things that
>have beneficial claimed effects but don't work. Got time to
>try them all? Is there ANYTHING that has claimed benefits
>that you wouldn't try?

Ah--there is very little toxicity (none?) to the
homeopathic remedy and it is inexpensive. Why not try it if
the asthma is not life-threatening? Why not try it to see
if standard medication dosages and their concomitant
toxicities can be reduced?

It depends on the situation.

> The fact that you refuse to answer this suggests that you
> have few critical thinking skills. C'mon, prove me wrong
> (sorry, show some evidence to the contrary). Name some
> alternative medicine claims that you think are crap. You
> can't do it, can you?

I did in another post re Hulda Clark. Wow--you're amazing.
Apparently you believe you have telepathic skills! News
flash! Ya don't.

>> The next question of WHY it works remains open. Due to the
>> principles outlined in the homeopathic approach? Due to a
>> less obvious
>> psychological effect? Due to methodological flaws in the
>> study? I am very curious about that as well.
>
>The latter is, by far, the most likely. It's just bad
>science. And the people who sell billions of dollars woth of
>the stuff make zero effort to study it further.

"Billions of dollars" in homeopathic remedies??? I don't think
so.

But yeah, someone's making money on it. And I'm certain some
of the stuff on the market is useless crap. Is all of it?

>> But again, you have decided how you feel about homeopathy
>> and you're more than welcome to feel that way!
>
>I follow the evidence. It's saying that there is no
>independently observable effect.

You do NOT follow the evidence, apparently. I posted a couple
of abstracts--and there are more--that showed an effect. No
comment from you on those.

>I know you don't understand how this process works because
>you're a credulous twit. But, again, it's easy to show I'm
>wrong. Just name a few alternative.claims that you think are
>crap and explain why.

LOL. You are insulting and cowardly in your insults!

Please feel free to enjoy your day and all the twisted angry
outrage that you are currently experiencing. As you accelerate
the pain of this fury, your cardiovascular system will be
stressed. You will then make the pharmaceutical industry
delighted by your need to purchase overpriced, overhyped crap
like Nexium.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 02:57:16 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
(David Wright) wrote:

snip..
>>The fact that even ONE homeopathic remedy appears to work is
>>a fascinating observation. Why should it? Indeed, I well
>>understand the skepticism....yet, using a gold standard
>>methodology, several studies have shown benefit. Several
>>others have shown no effect whatsoever, of course (just as
>>with allopathic medicine).
>
>Why should it, indeed? The most likely explanations are
>experimentor error, and statistical coincidence (with the
>typical 95% confidence level, in 1 out of 20 experiments,
>it'll look as though the remedy outperformed placebo, even
>though it really didn't).

Yes, that could be an explanation.

George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
> <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:

>>Admittedly, they are basically in the business of disproving
>>claims. However, their methodology is pretty good. For the
>>homeopath stuff they let the homeo advocates prescribe what
>>they were going to prove and how it should be done, then
>>both parties observe the testing process and the results as
>>done by independent technicians.
>
> That sounds bizarre. Is informed consent provided? Are these
> double-blind, placebo-controlled studies? "Independent
> technicians" - what qualifies them to evaluate a diagnosis
> and/or any change?

Educate yourself before you spew:

www.randi.org/challenge

>>I'm a skeptic. I'm not interested in what "others" think,
>>and the "appearance of efficacy" is not the same is
>>cause/effect proof.
>
> There is very little PROOF of anything in medicine.

Bullshit. For every medical procedure you say has little proof
of efficacy, I'll name two that have plenty of proof. Deal? I
expect you'll rapidly retreat into semantics.

> There is NO proof that any drug works for everyone, for
> example.

The issue is whether a homeopathic remedy (>11C) has any
physical effect on *anyone*. For about the hundredth time:

NOBODY has EVER been able to demonstrate that they can
differentiate between a homeopathic remedy (>11C) and the
original solute. Nobody, ever.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net>
>>What, exactly, is your problem with Hulda Clark? Try to be
>>specific.
>
> Many problems. She claims to "cure" HIV with a mixture of
> botanicals. In her book, she refers to a shift from p24
> positive to negative as a sign of such cure--it is nothing
> of the sort (certainly not in the early-mid 90s with the
> assays used at the time for p24).
>
> She uses unidentified species of Artemisia at VERY high
> (untraditionally high) dosages. These can be dangerous.
> There is little evidence that they have any effect on HIV
> (tho this is anecdotal)--and some people got pretty sick
> that I know.
>
> Finally, she claims AIDS is caused by some fluke no
> parasitologist I've ever known has ever found.
>
> In short, she makes a lot of claims that are ridiculous.
> Sort of like the knee-jerk, reflexive bigots at quackwatch.

Not bad. Why don't you apply these critical skills to
homeopathy?

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> LOL...that's called shifting the goalposts, dear. I don't
>>> KNOW if there is one replicated study. There were 3000
>>> hits on PubMed--so there MAY be. Yet you state this
>>> unequivocally.
>>
>>Correct. And I stand by my claim. Advocates of Homeopathy
>>would shout an independent replication of the basic claims
>>from the rooftops.
>
> Perhaps they have shouted same. But you can claim anything
> you like--given that you have not reviewed the data, your
> opinion holds little sway for me.

I have "reviewed the data". Many, many people have. There is
NO independent replication of any positive study. None. Your
refusal to accept this is becoming pathological.
>
> I thus remain agnostic about whether homeopathic remedies
> are worthwhile or not.

You thus keep your head in the sand.
>
>>> In any case, there is NEVER any proof for anything. There
>>> is merely a preponderance of evidence.
>>
>>Oh, OK. So, the effects of gravity haven't been proven?
>>Get real.
>
> Gravity is a discrete phenomenon. Homeopathy is a system of
> medicine, ostensibly.

The claims made for homeopathic remedies are "discrete
phenomenon". They are alleged to be obvious and dramatic.

>>Homeopathy pushers claim that a fantastic and *easily*
>>observable phenomena exists. Yet not one person has reliably
>>demonstrated the ability to observe this phenomena or
>>explained how such a thing is possible.
>
> Ah--several groups have apparently demonstrated that the
> phenomenon of homeopathy has some impact. They do have
> explanations of how it is supposed to work. I do not know if
> homeopaths have either developed testable questions to
> investigate the mechanisms of action and, if so, whether
> those hypotheses have been tested.

Nobody has an "explanation" that makes the slightest sense. Do
you believe that perpetual motion machines exist? There are
people who have "explanations" of how they work. BFD

>>It isn't that simple. NONE have been replicated. This after
>>200 years of trying. If anything this idiotic is happening
>>in "allopathic" medicine, it's crap as well.
>
> I'm glad to see your certainty. I'm sure it is refreshing
> for you and inspires a sense of confidence!

My certainty is based on empirical reality. What I stated
above is a fact. Instaed of showing otherwise (where the
evidence should be readily available) you shove your head up
your ass and claim that you have no real opinion because
you're not aware of information that would allow you to make
one. Idiot.

>>They may benefit from literally hundreds of other things
>>that have beneficial claimed effects but don't work. Got
>>time to try them all? Is there ANYTHING that has claimed
>>benefits that you wouldn't try?
>
> Ah--there is very little toxicity (none?) to the homeopathic
> remedy and it is inexpensive. Why not try it if the asthma
> is not life-threatening? Why not try it to see if standard
> medication dosages and their concomitant toxicities can be
> reduced?

Why not try hundreds and hundreds of things that are claimed
to work? Because there isn't enough time or money. That's why.
So why do you favour one wholly unproved and scientifically
untenable treatment over another? You say yourself that you
know shit about it.

>> The fact that you refuse to answer this suggests that you
>> have few critical thinking skills. C'mon, prove me wrong
>> (sorry, show some evidence to the contrary). Name some
>> alternative medicine claims that you think are crap. You
>> can't do it, can you?
>
> I did in another post re Hulda Clark. Wow--you're amazing.
> Apparently you believe you have telepathic skills! News
> flash! Ya don't.

You did this after I posted the above. Real hero.

>>The latter is, by far, the most likely. It's just bad
>>science. And the people who sell billions of dollars woth of
>>the stuff make zero effort to study it further.
>
> "Billions of dollars" in homeopathic remedies??? I don't
> think so.

That's because you are uneducated and, likely, ineducable
(stupid). "Billions of dollars" is correct.

Google "homeopathy" and "annual sales". France alone racks up
annual sales of 350 million.

>>> But again, you have decided how you feel about homeopathy
>>> and you're more than welcome to feel that way!
>>
>>I follow the evidence. It's saying that there is no
>>independently observable effect.
>
> You do NOT follow the evidence, apparently. I posted a
> couple of abstracts--and there are more--that showed an
> effect. No comment from you on those.

NO independently reproduced trial. Not one.
>
>>I know you don't understand how this process works because
>>you're a credulous twit. But, again, it's easy to show I'm
>>wrong. Just name a few alternative.claims that you think are
>>crap and explain why.
>
> LOL. You are insulting and cowardly in your insults!

Insulting in my insults. Very astute. Cowardly? Doubtful.

moo

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:14:01 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>> <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:
>
>>>Admittedly, they are basically in the business of
>>>disproving claims. However, their methodology is pretty
>>>good. For the homeopath stuff they let the homeo advocates
>>>prescribe what they were going to prove and how it should
>>>be done, then both parties observe the testing process and
>>>the results as done by independent technicians.
>>
>> That sounds bizarre. Is informed consent provided? Are
>> these double-blind, placebo-controlled studies?
>> "Independent technicians" - what qualifies them to evaluate
>> a diagnosis and/or any change?
>
>Educate yourself before you spew:
>
>www.randi.org/challenge
>
>>>I'm a skeptic. I'm not interested in what "others" think,
>>>and the "appearance of efficacy" is not the same is
>>>cause/effect proof.
>>
>> There is very little PROOF of anything in medicine.
>
>Bullshit. For every medical procedure you say has little
>proof of efficacy, I'll name two that have plenty of proof.
>Deal? I expect you'll rapidly retreat into semantics.

No, you won't. You'll name two that have plenty of Evidence.
This is different from proof, per se.

>> There is NO proof that any drug works for everyone, for
>> example.
>
>The issue is whether a homeopathic remedy (>11C) has any
>physical effect on *anyone*. For about the hundredth time:
>
>NOBODY has EVER been able to demonstrate that they can
>differentiate between a homeopathic remedy (>11C) and the
>original solute. Nobody, ever.

You just said two completely different things. Are you able to
understand that? In the first sentence, you are incorrect.
There is EVIDENCE, not proof, from some clinical studies of
homeopathic remedies that have had a physical effect on
people. I provided some abstracts to that regard.

The SECOND issue of WHAT the material is and how it is
differentiated or not, it is your claim that they have never
been able to distinguish between the two. I don't trust this
assertion, however. It may be true, I don't know.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:29:30 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

snip...
>> No, you won't. You'll name two that have plenty of
>> Evidence. This is different from proof, per se.
>
>I didn't think you'd twist it into a semantical issue *that*
>quickly. You should go pro!

It's not semantics. It's the reality of medicine. Proof is
something you can achieve in the abstractions of mathematics.
Evidence is something you can achieve in medicine.

>>..There is EVIDENCE, not proof, from some clinical studies
>>of homeopathic remedies that have had a physical effect on
>>people. I provided some abstracts to that regard.
>
>That evidence is very, very poor. The claim is that there is
>an obvious, unambiguous effect. Yet the only "evidence" is a
>few (after 200 years!) never independently replicated trials.

Again, so you claim. You may well be right.

>> The SECOND issue of WHAT the material is and how it is
>> differentiated or not, it is your claim that they have
>> never been able to distinguish between the two. I
>> don't trust this assertion, however. It may be true, I
>> don't know.
>
>Why don't you, at least, try to educate yourself on the
>subject? You don't understand the significance of my
>"assertion". If it's incorrect, it would be front page news.

Oh, I already addressed this. You claim: it doesn't make
sense, therefore it can't work.

I assert, it may not appear to make sense, but if it works
(that is, DBPC study yields positive, stat sig results),
we need to THEN continue investigating why it works. As I
say, there are some data suggesting that it works, in a
clinical sense.

There are AMPLE cases throughout history where people
SCREAMED it could not be so. Yet, then evidence accumulated
that, nope. It does appear to be so. Subatomic physics and
cosmology are replete with such examples. Of course, that
does NOT justify glib acceptance of any theory, as you try to
suggest in your demands.

And, moo. Why "moo"? LOL. Just curious.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:43:29 -0400, "tech27"
<tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:

>snip...
>> I'm intrigued now more by your pschiatric state.
>> Please, go on.
>
>Typical response used by idiots to avoid the point.

Wow. You are really insecure about this or what? Huh. Idiot.

snip

>> I see. A double-blind, placebo-controlled and randomized
>> study no longer fits in the paradigm of "science" according
>> to you?
>
>Not really, unless the results are conclusive. If you are
>referring to one of the studies you cited, the results were
>all framed with words like apparent, appear to indicate, may
>have some effect, etc.

LOL...are you KIDDING? Have you ever read a full journal
paper?

They are replete with such qualifiers.

>You are only showing what a moron you are by not even
>considering that not only does the study have to be sound,
>but the RESULTS NEED TO PROVE SOMETHING -beyond maybe or seem
>to. Like cause and effect. IE: You are an idiot, the effect
>is that your diatribes are bullshit, and now preclude me from
>any further discussions with you.

Darling, you haven't a clue what a diatribe is either. Believe
me, I can do diatribe quite nicely!

Results do NOT need to PROVE anything. They need to show
EVIDENCE of safety and efficacy. Wow--I am certain you have
never read a medical journal paper in full. Ever.

Bye-bye now!

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:31:45 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

snip
>Not bad. Why don't you apply these critical skills to
>homeopathy?

LOL. Why don't you?

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:32:40 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> LOL...that's called shifting the goalposts, dear. I don't
>>>> KNOW if there is one replicated study. There were 3000
>>>> hits on PubMed--so there MAY be. Yet you state this
>>>> unequivocally.
>>>
>>>Correct. And I stand by my claim. Advocates of Homeopathy
>>>would shout an independent replication of the basic claims
>>>from the rooftops.
>>
>> Perhaps they have shouted same. But you can claim anything
>> you like--given that you have not reviewed the data, your
>> opinion holds little sway for me.
>
>I have "reviewed the data". Many, many people have. There is
>NO independent replication of any positive study. None. Your
>refusal to accept this is becoming pathological.

LOL. No, it is merely frustrating for you that I don't accept
your word. And you've provided neither evidence of having
undertaken such a review nor an open enough mind to be able to
conduct one.

>> I thus remain agnostic about whether homeopathic remedies
>> are worthwhile or not.
>
>You thus keep your head in the sand.

Perhaps.

>>>> In any case, there is NEVER any proof for anything. There
>>>> is merely a preponderance of evidence.
>>>
>>>Oh, OK. So, the effects of gravity haven't been proven?
>>>Get real.
>>
>> Gravity is a discrete phenomenon. Homeopathy is a system of
>> medicine, ostensibly.
>
>The claims made for homeopathic remedies are "discrete
>phenomenon". They are alleged to be obvious and dramatic.

Interesting. By whom?

>>>Homeopathy pushers claim that a fantastic and *easily*
>>>observable phenomena exists. Yet not one person has
>>>reliably demonstrated the ability to observe this phenomena
>>>or explained how such a thing is possible.
>>
>> Ah--several groups have apparently demonstrated that the
>> phenomenon of homeopathy has some impact. They do have
>> explanations of how it is supposed to work. I do not know
>> if homeopaths have either developed testable questions to
>> investigate the mechanisms of action and, if so, whether
>> those hypotheses have been tested.
>
>Nobody has an "explanation" that makes the slightest sense.
>Do you believe that perpetual motion machines exist? There
>are people who have "explanations" of how they work. BFD

I have never seen any reliable or convincing evidence for any
perpetual motion machines! Or cold fusion, sadly. Yet...that
may yet happen.

I do not believe that homeopathic remedies are either to be
dismissed entirely or accepted wholly. I don't see why that
bends you out of shape.

>>>It isn't that simple. NONE have been replicated. This after
>>>200 years of trying. If anything this idiotic is happening
>>>in "allopathic" medicine, it's crap as well.
>>
>> I'm glad to see your certainty. I'm sure it is refreshing
>> for you and inspires a sense of confidence!
>
>My certainty is based on empirical reality. What I stated
>above is a fact. Instaed of showing otherwise (where the
>evidence should be readily available) you shove your head up
>your ass and claim that you have no real opinion because
>you're not aware of information that would allow you to make
>one. Idiot.

You're EVER so charming! Is that how you think you'll win an
argument? By being a belligerent asshole? Oh, right. Works for
Bush et al....

snip

>> I did in another post re Hulda Clark. Wow--you're amazing.
>> Apparently you believe you have telepathic skills! News
>> flash! Ya don't.
>
>You did this after I posted the above. Real hero.

Actually, no, I posted it before I responded to your request.
News flash again, dearest, just because you ask for something,
doesn't mean you will necessarily get it!

>>>The latter is, by far, the most likely. It's just bad
>>>science. And the people who sell billions of dollars woth
>>>of the stuff make zero effort to study it further.
>>
>> "Billions of dollars" in homeopathic remedies??? I don't
>> think so.
>
>That's because you are uneducated and, likely, ineducable
>(stupid). "Billions of dollars" is correct.

So you claim without evidence.

>Google "homeopathy" and "annual sales". France alone racks up
>annual sales of 350 million.

Well, golly, if you've already got the data, feel free to
share it! It may be accurate.

>>>> But again, you have decided how you feel about homeopathy
>>>> and you're more than welcome to feel that way!
>>>
>>>I follow the evidence. It's saying that there is no
>>>independently observable effect.
>>
>> You do NOT follow the evidence, apparently. I posted a
>> couple of abstracts--and there are more--that showed an
>> effect. No comment from you on those.
>
>NO independently reproduced trial. Not one.

So you claim.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:32:40 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

snip
>> "Billions of dollars" in homeopathic remedies??? I don't
>> think so.
>
>That's because you are uneducated and, likely, ineducable
>(stupid). "Billions of dollars" is correct.
>
>Google "homeopathy" and "annual sales". France alone racks up
>annual sales of 350 million.

I did this, oh Unhappy Dog. I don't find anything like what
you're suggesting.

One source notes: "...statistics now show that the American
public is returning to this form of treatment in dramatic
numbers, with annual sales of homeopathic medicines in the
United States now reaching $150 million." (ref McAuliffe, S.
"Homeopathy Goes Mainstream: New Treatments for Old
Ills." Longevity 4 no.12 (Nov, 1992):62.)

Those data are old, though. So it's hard to say. Yet, I wonder
what the relevance of the figure is. For example, one company,
Mary Kay, that sells cosmetics sold $1.5 billion: "Today, the
company is the No. 1 direct-sale skin-care line, with more
than a million beauty consultants worldwide and $1.5 billion
in annual sales." (see
http://etude.uoregon.edu/summer2003/marykay/)

People buy all sorts of stuff, here just to be culturally
acceptable, in some, er, fashion.

So essentially, it is a non sequitur argument.

It says nothing about whether homeopathy has any value or not
in terms of clinical efficacy. That, though, appears to be the
case for the data below.

George M. Carter

** SOMETHING happened though it's not really clear what.

Mollinger H, Schneider R, Loffel M, Walach H. A double-blind,
randomized, homeopathic pathogenetic trial with healthy
persons: comparing two high potencies. Forsch Komplementarmed
Klass Naturheilkd. 2004 Oct;11(5):274-80.

Health Center Sokrates, Guttingen, Switzerland.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: According to homeopathic
theory, symptoms provoked by the homeopathic remedy in a
pathogenetic trial (PT) make up the remedy picture
serving as the basis for the homeopathic treatment.
Little is known whether the symptoms produced by the
remedy differ from symptoms produced by placebo. This is
because both homeopathic remedy and placebo also produce
so-called unspecific effects due to psychological
reasons. We therefore explore the distinctiveness of
homeopathic symptoms and placebo symptoms. DESIGN: A
three-armed, randomized PT pilot study. SETTING: A
blinded materia medica expert identifies symptoms with
regard to their number and specificity. PARTICIPANTS: 21
healthy homeopathic practitioners note symptoms produced
after remedy intake. INTERVENTIONS: Patients are randomly
assigned to receive either (1) Calendula officinalis, (2)
Ferrum muriaticum, or (3) placebo. After a seven-day
baseline symptoms recording period, proving substances
are taken until symptoms occur. In daily supervision
phone calls, symptoms are verified by the supervisor.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Total number of symptoms produced
and number of specific symptoms produced. OUTLOOK: The
results showed that both remedies 'produced'
significantly more symptoms than placebo. With regard to
the specificity, the Calendula officinalis group
displayed more remedy-specific symptoms than placebo.
However, in the Ferrum muriaticum group more Calendula
symptoms than placebo were also recorded.

** Cavalcanti AM, Rocha LM, Carillo R Jr, Lima LU, Lugon JR.
Effects of homeopathic treatment on pruritus of haemodialysis
patients: a randomised placebo-controlled double-blind trial.
Homeopathy. 2003 Oct;92(4):177-81.

Community Health Institute, Universidade Federal Fluminense,
Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Pruritus is a frequent and difficult to treat problem in
haemodialysis. This double-blind placebo-controlled randomised
clinical trial assessed the role of homeopathic treatment in
this situation. The code was held by the pharmacist who
dispensed the medications. Pruritus was evaluated using a
previously published scale. Only patients with initial values
above 25% of maximum pruritus score were entered. Data were
analysed after partial code break, separating the two groups
of patients, but with no awareness of which one received verum
or placebo. Patients were classified as responders if they had
>50% reduction of pruritus score. Twenty-eight patients
(16M/12F, 51 +/- 11 years of age) were entered and 20 (12M/8F,
52 +/- 8 years of age) remained for final analysis: 11 in
the verum group, 9 in placebo. At entry, the mean
pruritus score was 65 +/- 25% for the treated patients
and 70 +/- 27% for placebo. After 15, 30, 45, and 60 days
of follow-up, pruritus score were respectively: 46 +/-
29, 41 +/- 30, 42 +/- 29, and 38 +/- 33 for the treated
patients and 61 +/- 29, 67 +/- 31, 64 +/- 35, and 57 +/-
39 for placebo. Reduction was statistically significant
(P<0.05) at every point of observation. According to the
patients' own assessment, at the end of the study period,
the homeopathic treatment reduced the pruritus score by
approximately 49%. Responders were more frequent in the
treated group with statistical significance at 30 days
(0% vs 45%, P=0.038). Homeopathic treatment may represent
a worthwhile alternative to relieve pruritus in patients
undergoing haemodialysis.

** This one suffers from poor methodology (not randomized,
etc.) and analysis of responders/non-responders is
questionable.

Bell IR, Lewis DA 2nd, Schwartz GE, Lewis SE, Caspi O, Scott
A, Brooks AJ, Baldwin CM. Electroencephalographic cordance
patterns distinguish exceptional clinical responders with
fibromyalgia to individualized homeopathic medicines. J Altern
Complement Med. 2004 Apr;10(2):285-99.

Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ,
USA. ibell@u.arizona.edu

OBJECTIVES: To characterize initial central nervous system
responses to olfactory administration of homeopathic
remedies as biomarkers for subsequently exceptional,
simillimum-like clinical outcomes at a systemic level
(i.e., both locally and globally). DESIGN: Double-blinded,
randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: A
private homeopathic clinic in Phoenix, AZ, and a
university laboratory in Tucson, AZ. PATIENTS: Sixty-two
(62) persons with physician-confirmed fibromyalgia (FM)
(mean age, 49 years; 94% women) enrolled; 53 completed the
3-month assessment visit. Exceptional responders (n = 6,
23% of active treatment group; none on placebo) were those
with improvements in the top one-third for both tender
point pain and global health ratings after 3 months.
INTERVENTION: Patients took daily oral doses of treatment
solution in LM (1/50,000 dilution) potency (active group
received individualized remedy; placebo group received
plain solvent). Dependent measures: Baseline and 3-month
difference scores for initial prefrontal
electroencephalographic alpha frequency cordance (EEG-C, a
correlate of functional brain activity) during 16 pairs of
randomized, double-blinded bottle sniffs (treatment minus
control solutions). RESULTS: Exceptional responders versus
other patients exhibited significantly more negative
initial EEG-C difference scores at prefrontal sites. Right
prefrontal cordance findings correlated with subsequently
reduced pain (r = 0.85, p = 0.03), better global health (r
=-0.73, p = 0.10), and trait absorption (genetically
determined ability to focus attention selectively and
fully) (r = 0.91, p = .012). CONCLUSIONS: These
observations suggest prefrontal EEG-C as an early
biomarker of individualized homeopathic medicine effects
in patients with FM who later exhibit exceptional
outcomes. Prefrontal cortex controls executive function,
including ability to redirect attention. Interactions
between executive function, absorption, and the simillimum
remedy could facilitate exceptional responses.

** Arnica failed to show any benefit in this study.

Stevinson C, Devaraj VS, Fountain-Barber A, Hawkins S, Ernst
E. Homeopathic arnica for prevention of pain and bruising:
randomized placebo-controlled trial in hand surgery. J R Soc
Med. 2003 Feb;96(2):60-5. Comments in: * J R Soc Med. 2003
Apr;96(4):204-5; author reply 206-7.

Department of Complementary Medicine, University of
Exeter, UK.

Homeopathic arnica is widely believed to control bruising,
reduce swelling and promote recovery after local trauma; many
patients therefore take it perioperatively. To determine
whether this treatment has any effect, we conducted a
double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial with three
parallel arms. 64 adults undergoing elective surgery for
carpal tunnel syndrome were randomized to take three tablets
daily of homeopathic arnica 30C or 6C or placebo for seven
days before surgery and fourteen days after surgery. Primary
outcome measures were pain (short form McGill Pain
Questionnaire) and bruising (colour separation analysis) at
four days after surgery. Secondary outcome measures were
swelling (wrist circumference) and use of analgesic
medication (patient diary). 62 patients could be included in
the intention-to-treat analysis. There were no group
differences on the primary outcome measures of pain (P=0.79)
and bruising (P=0.45) at day four. Swelling and use of
analgesic medication also did not differ between arnica and
placebo groups. Adverse events were reported by 2 patients in
the arnica 6C group, 3 in the placebo group and 4 in the
arnica 30C group. The results of this trial do not suggest
that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo in
reducing postoperative pain, bruising and swelling in
patients undergoing elective hand surgery.

** Schmidt JM, Ostermayr B. Does a homeopathic ultramolecular
dilution of Thyroidinum 30cH affect the rate of body weight
reduction in fasting patients? A randomised placebo-controlled
double-blind clinical trial. Homeopathy. 2002
Oct;91(4):197-206.

Krankenhaus fur Naturheilweisen, Munich, Germany.
josef.m.schmidt@lrz.uni-muenchen.de

OBJECTIVE: To test whether an ultramolecular dilution of
homeopathic Thyroidinum has an effect over placebo on
weight reduction of fasting patients in so-called 'fasting
crisis'. DESIGN: Randomised, placebo-controlled,
double-blind, parallel group, monocentre study.
SETTING/LOCATION: Hospital for internal and complementary
medicine in Munich, Germany. SUBJECTS: Two hundred and
eight fasting patients encountering a stagnation or
increase of weight after a weight reduction of at least
100 g/day in the preceding 3 days. INTERVENTION: One oral
dose of Thyroidinum 30cH (preparation of thyroid gland) or
placebo. OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measure was
reduction of body weight 2 days after treatment. Secondary
outcome measures were weight reduction on days 1 and 3, 15
complaints on days 1-3, and 34 laboratory findings on days
1-2 after treatment. RESULTS: Weight reduction on the
second day after medication in the Thyroidinum group was
less than in the placebo group (mean difference 92 g, 95%
confidence interval 7-176 g, P=0.034). Adjustment for
baseline differences in body weight and rate of weight
reduction before medication, however, weakened the result
to a non-significant level (P=0.094). There were no
differences between groups in the secondary outcome
measures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving Thyroidinum had
less weight reduction on day 2 after treatment than those
receiving placebo. Yet, since no significant differences
were found in other outcomes and since adjustment for
baseline differences rendered the difference for the main
outcome measure non-significant, this result must be
interpreted with caution. Post hoc evaluation of the data,
however, suggests that by predefining the primary outcome
measure in a different way, an augmented reduction of
weight on day 1 after treatment with Thyroidinum may be
demonstrated. Both results would be compatible with
homeopathic doctrine (primary and secondary effect) as
well as with findings from animal research.

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message news:
>>> That sounds bizarre. Is informed consent provided? Are
>>> these double-blind, placebo-controlled studies?
>>> "Independent technicians" - what qualifies them to
>>> evaluate a diagnosis and/or any change?
>>
>>Educate yourself before you spew:
>>
>>www.randi.org/challenge

< cue the crickets >

>>> There is very little PROOF of anything in medicine.
>>
>>Bullshit. For every medical procedure you say has little
>>proof of efficacy, I'll name two that have plenty of proof.
>>Deal? I expect you'll rapidly retreat into semantics.
>
> No, you won't. You'll name two that have plenty of Evidence.
> This is different from proof, per se.

I didn't think you'd twist it into a semantical issue *that*
quickly. You should go pro!
>
>>The issue is whether a homeopathic remedy (>11C) has any
>>physical effect on *anyone*. For about the hundredth time:
>>
>>NOBODY has EVER been able to demonstrate that they can
>>differentiate between a homeopathic remedy (>11C) and the
>>original solute. Nobody, ever.
>
> You just said two completely different things. Are you able
> to understand that? In the first sentence, you are
> incorrect. There is EVIDENCE, not proof, from some clinical
> studies of homeopathic remedies that have had a physical
> effect on people. I provided some abstracts to that regard.

That evidence is very, very poor. The claim is that there is
an obvious, unambiguous effect. Yet the only "evidence" is a
few (after 200 years!) never independently replicated trials.
>
> The SECOND issue of WHAT the material is and how it is
> differentiated or not, it is your claim that they have never
> been able to distinguish between the two. I don't trust this
> assertion, however. It may be true, I don't know.

Why don't you, at least, try to educate yourself on the
subject? You don't understand the significance of my
"assertion". If it's incorrect, it would be front page news.

moo

[Gmcarter]

Another odd one. Why would a mouthwash with a homeopathic
preparation work better than one without?

George M. Carter

** Oberbaum M, Yaniv I, Ben-Gal Y, Stein J, Ben-Zvi N,
Freedman LS, Branski D. A randomized, controlled clinical
trial of the homeopathic medication TRAUMEEL S in the
treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children
undergoing stem cell transplantation. Cancer. 2001 Aug
1;92(3):684-90.

The Institute of Research on Complementary Medicine, The
Center of Integrated Complementary Medicine, Shaare Zedek
Medical Center, P.O. Box 3235, Jerusalem 91031, Israel.
oberbaum@netvision.net.il

BACKGROUND: Stomatitis is a common consequence of
chemotherapy and a condition for which there is little
effective treatment. Although the management of patients
with other chemotherapy-related toxicities has improved in
recent years, the incidence of stomatitis is increasing
because of more intensive treatment and is often a dose
limiting factor in chemotherapy. The authors assessed the
efficacy of a homeopathic remedy, TRAUMEEL S(R), in the
management of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children
undergoing bone marrow transplantation. METHODS: A
randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical
trial was conducted in 32 patients ages 3-25 years who had
undergone allogeneic (16 patients) or autologous (16
patients) stem cell transplantation. Of the 30 evaluable
patients, 15 were assigned placebo, and 15 were assigned
TRAUMEEL S both as a mouth rinse, administered five times
daily from 2 days after transplantation for a minimum of
14 days, or until at least 2 days after all signs of
stomatitis were absent. Stomatitis scores were evaluated
according to the World Health Organization grading system
for mucositis. RESULTS: A total of five patients (33%) in
the TRAUMEEL S treatment group did not develop stomatitis
compared with only one patient (7%) in the placebo group.
Stomatitis worsened in only 7 patients (47%) in the
TRAUMEEL S treatment group compared with 14 patients (93%)
in the placebo group. The mean area under the curve
stomatitis scores were 10.4 in the TRAUMEEL S treatment
group and 24.3 in the placebo group. This difference was
statistically significant (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This
study indicates that TRAUMEEL S may reduce significantly
the severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced
stomatitis in children undergoing bone marrow
transplantation. Copyright 2001 American Cancer Society.

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:31:38 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net>
>
>>>Not bad. Why don't you apply these critical skills to
>>>homeopathy?
>>
>> LOL. Why don't you?
>
>
>I have, idiot.

So you claim, asshole.

>Unlike you, I understand the subject. You have used basic
>scientific knowledge and reasoning to dismiss Hulda. If you
>understood the claims of homeopathy, you should come to the
>same conclusion. As for Hulda, how do you KNOW her treatments
>don't work? Many people swear by them.

LOL. I understand the claims of homeopathy. I grant you, they
do not seem very logical in the slightest. And indeed, those
data that are positive may be a fluke, as someone else
suggested.

I do not consider skepticism to equate with knee-jerk sneering
rejection. Nor do I feel the need to wholeheartedly embrace. I
leave that to the realm of the juvenile.

I don't know ANYONE that swears by Hulda's protocol. There
may be some that do...but there are no DBPC-randomized
studies of her ideas and the anecdotes I have heard have been
negative. That adds to the underlying rejection of her
underlying theories.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:41:23 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>>>I have "reviewed the data". Many, many people have. There
>>>is NO independent replication of any positive study. None.
>>>Your refusal to accept this is becoming pathological.
>>
>> LOL. No, it is merely frustrating for you that I don't
>> accept your word. And you've provided neither evidence of
>> having undertaken such a review nor an open enough mind to
>> be able to conduct one.
>
>What would you consider "evidence"? Look for yourself. Google
>is your friend.

I have suggested the same. I've even spoon-fed you data from
PubMed. You ignore it.

>>>> Gravity is a discrete phenomenon. Homeopathy is a system
>>>> of medicine, ostensibly.
>>>
>>>The claims made for homeopathic remedies are "discrete
>>>phenomenon". They are alleged to be obvious and dramatic.
>>
>> Interesting. By whom?
>
>Lordy. How did you learn about Hulda? Homeopathy promoters
>make dramatic claims for the efficacy of homeopathic
>preparations. Look at a homeopathic site.

OK.

snip
>The ramifications if any of it were reliably observable
>are the same for all of it. Physics, as we know it,
>would be over.

LOL. Hardly. See, I have a much greater confidence in the
ability of people to develop more sophisticated understanding
of how the world works. Newtonian physics didn't need to be
scrapped because of the oddities of quantum physics, for
example. Simple recognized as being in a distinct frame of
reference.

>>>My certainty is based on empirical reality. What I stated
>>>above is a fact. Instead of showing otherwise (where the
>>>evidence should be readily available) you shove your head
>>>up your ass and claim that you have no real opinion because
>>>you're not aware of information that would allow you to
>>>make one. Idiot.
>>
>> You're EVER so charming! Is that how you think you'll win
>> an argument? By being a belligerent asshole? Oh, right.
>> Works for Bush et al....
>
>I am winning the argument because you are not responding to
>my assertion with anything factual. The whining is an
>adorable attempt at diversion.

LOL. Nonsense. I have responded to MANY of your assertions,
despite the fact that a lot of them womble off into the mists
of your odd tangential mind.

>>>Google "homeopathy" and "annual sales". France alone racks
>>>up annual sales of 350 million.
>>
>> Well, golly, if you've already got the data, feel free to
>> share it! It may be accurate.
>
>www.homeopathy.org
>
>Educate yourself.

Why thanks! Finally. A reference to something other than your
vaunted opinions!

>>>NO independently reproduced trial. Not one.
>>
>> So you claim.
>
>Idiot. Learn about the subject before you spew. I'm not here
>to educate you.

Hee-hee. Nor am I here to educate you. I thought we'd just
have a discussion, but there you are again getting all hot and
bothered, anxious--I can practically see the blood vessels
popping in your forehead.

Darling angry dog, why not just chill a bit?

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:44:27 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>>>Google "homeopathy" and "annual sales". France alone racks
>>>up annual sales of 350 million.
>>
>> I did this, oh Unhappy Dog. I don't find anything like what
>> you're suggesting.
>
>Look harder.

Maybe. If I feel like it. Clearly, if you have found something
to support your assertion, you'd've posted it. Having failed
to, I can only presume you were making it up.

>> It says nothing about whether homeopathy has any value or
>> not in terms of clinical efficacy. That, though, appears to
>> be the case for the data below.
>
>It wasn't supposed to. The point is the lack of research by
>the people earning millions.

You could say that about the pharmaceutical industry. The vast
majority of prescriptions are "off-label" and physicians are
so encouraged by the industry.

It does not invalidate the value of drugs.

>> ** SOMETHING happened though it's not really clear what.
>
>Bad studies. Never replicated. *yawn*

LOL. Why is it a bad study? Are you sure it was never
replicated?

Simply for you to claim it is without anything but a *yawn*
indicates a lack of intellectual rigor.

George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net>

>>Not bad. Why don't you apply these critical skills to
>>homeopathy?
>
> LOL. Why don't you?

I have, idiot. Unlike you, I understand the subject. You have
used basic scientific knowledge and reasoning to dismiss
Hulda. If you understood the claims of homeopathy, you should
come to the same conclusion. As for Hulda, how do you KNOW her
treatments don't work? Many people swear by them.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>I have "reviewed the data". Many, many people have. There is
>>NO independent replication of any positive study. None. Your
>>refusal to accept this is becoming pathological.
>
> LOL. No, it is merely frustrating for you that I don't
> accept your word. And you've provided neither evidence of
> having undertaken such a review nor an open enough mind to
> be able to conduct one.

What would you consider "evidence"? Look for yourself. Google
is your friend.

>>> Gravity is a discrete phenomenon. Homeopathy is a system
>>> of medicine, ostensibly.
>>
>>The claims made for homeopathic remedies are "discrete
>>phenomenon". They are alleged to be obvious and dramatic.
>
> Interesting. By whom?

Lordy. How did you learn about Hulda? Homeopathy promoters
make dramatic claims for the efficacy of homeopathic
preparations. Look at a homeopathic site.

>>Nobody has an "explanation" that makes the slightest sense.
>>Do you believe that perpetual motion machines exist? There
>>are people who have "explanations" of how they work. BFD
>
> I have never seen any reliable or convincing evidence for
> any perpetual motion machines! Or cold fusion, sadly.
> Yet...that may yet happen.
>
> I do not believe that homeopathic remedies are either to be
> dismissed entirely or accepted wholly. I don't see why that
> bends you out of shape.

The evidence for perpetual motion and cold fusion is the same
as homeopathy. The ramifications if any of it were reliably
observable are the same for all of it. Physics, as we know it,
would be over.
>
>>My certainty is based on empirical reality. What I stated
>>above is a fact. Instead of showing otherwise (where the
>>evidence should be readily available) you shove your head up
>>your ass and claim that you have no real opinion because
>>you're not aware of information that would allow you to make
>>one. Idiot.
>
> You're EVER so charming! Is that how you think you'll win an
> argument? By being a belligerent asshole? Oh, right. Works
> for Bush et al....

I am winning the argument because you are not responding to my
assertion with anything factual. The whining is an adorable
attempt at diversion.
>
>>Google "homeopathy" and "annual sales". France alone racks
>>up annual sales of 350 million.
>
> Well, golly, if you've already got the data, feel free to
> share it! It may be accurate.

www.homeopathy.org

Educate yourself.

>>NO independently reproduced trial. Not one.
>
> So you claim.

Idiot. Learn about the subject before you spew. I'm not here
to educate you.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>Google "homeopathy" and "annual sales". France alone racks
>>up annual sales of 350 million.
>
> I did this, oh Unhappy Dog. I don't find anything like what
> you're suggesting.

Look harder.

> It says nothing about whether homeopathy has any value or
> not in terms of clinical efficacy. That, though, appears to
> be the case for the data below.

It wasn't supposed to. The point is the lack of research by
the people earning millions.
>
> George M. Carter
>
> ** SOMETHING happened though it's not really clear what.

Bad studies. Never replicated. *yawn*

moo

[Tech27]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:esdc61d5l4hhnnc3teg09quug1b47ai5if@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:10:21 -0400, "tech27"
> <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>news:5H99e.3722$9G.307226@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>>>>
>>>> The next question of WHY it works remains open. Due to
>>>> the principles outlined in the homeopathic approach? Due
>>>> to a less obvious
>>>> psychological effect? Due to methodological flaws in the
>>>> study? I am very curious about that as well.
>>
>>My constipation was relieved when they pulled the feeding
>>tube out of the vegetable called Shiavo. Due to some
>>principle? Psychological effect? Are you curious about this
>>anecdotal experience?
>
> I'm intrigued now more by your pschiatric state.
> Please, go on.

Typical response used by idiots to avoid the point.

>
>>> The latter is, by far, the most likely. It's just bad
>>> science. And the people who sell billions of dollars woth
>>> of the stuff make zero effort to study it further.
>>
>>It's not "bad" science, it just isn't any kind of science.
>
> I see. A double-blind, placebo-controlled and randomized
> study no longer fits in the paradigm of "science"
> according to you?

Not really, unless the results are conclusive. If you are
referring to one of the studies you cited, the results were
all framed with words like apparent, appear to indicate, may
have some effect, etc. You are only showing what a moron you
are by not even considering that not only does the study have
to be sound, but the RESULTS NEED TO PROVE SOMETHING -beyond
maybe or seem to. Like cause and effect. IE: You are an idiot,
the effect is that your diatribes are bullshit, and now
preclude me from any further discussions with you.

> George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>I have "reviewed the data". Many, many people have. There
>>>>is NO independent replication of any positive study. None.
>>>>Your refusal to accept this is becoming pathological.
>>>
>>> LOL. No, it is merely frustrating for you that I don't
>>> accept your word. And you've provided neither evidence of
>>> having undertaken such a review nor an open enough mind to
>>> be able to conduct one.
>>
>>What would you consider "evidence"? Look for yourself.
>>Google is your friend.
>
> I have suggested the same. I've even spoon-fed you data from
> PubMed. You ignore it.

I didn't ignore it. I correctly pointed out that there is no
independent replication. Have you looked into this assertion?
No, you haven't.

>>Lordy. How did you learn about Hulda? Homeopathy promoters
>>make dramatic claims for the efficacy of homeopathic
>>preparations. Look at a homeopathic site.
>
> OK.
>
>>The ramifications if any of it were reliably observable
>>are the same for all of it. Physics, as we know it, would
>>be over.
>
> LOL. Hardly. See, I have a much greater confidence in the
> ability of people to develop more sophisticated
> understanding of how the world works. Newtonian physics
> didn't need to be scrapped because of the oddities of
> quantum physics, for example. Simple recognized as being in
> a distinct frame of reference.

You don't get it. Newtonian physics was superceded by SR and
GR (not QM). Newton was wrong. But, his theory works well
enough for many calculations where the error won't have a
significant effect on the outcome. For homeopathic claims
about the memory of water to be correct, virtually all of
physics would have to be rewritten. It would be a wholesale
change in basic atomic theory.
>
>>I am winning the argument because you are not responding to
>>my assertion with anything factual. The whining is an
>>adorable attempt at diversion.
>
> LOL. Nonsense. I have responded to MANY of your assertions,
> despite the fact that a lot of them womble off into the
> mists of your odd tangential mind.

I was speaking of my specific assertion that nobody
candifferentiate between a highly diluted substance (>11C) and
the original solute. Nobody.
>
>>>>NO independently reproduced trial. Not one.
>>>
>>> So you claim.
>>
>>Idiot. Learn about the subject before you spew. I'm not here
>>to educate you.
>
> Hee-hee. Nor am I here to educate you. I thought we'd just
> have a discussion, but there you are again getting all hot
> and bothered, anxious--I can practically see the blood
> vessels popping in your forehead.

Divert as you will. My claim is correct. Why not admit you
just don't care enough to research the topic for yourself? I'm
fine with that.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>>> It says nothing about whether homeopathy has any value or
>>> not in terms of clinical efficacy. That, though, appears
>>> to be the case for the data below.
>>
>>It wasn't supposed to. The point is the lack of research by
>>the people earning millions.
>
> You could say that about the pharmaceutical industry. The
> vast majority of prescriptions are "off-label" and
> physicians are so encouraged by the industry.

The pharmaceutical industry doesn't spend significantly
on research?

>>> SOMETHING happened though it's not really clear what.
>>
>>Bad studies. Never replicated. *yawn*
>
> LOL. Why is it a bad study? Are you sure it was never
> replicated?

It's bad science because there is a claim of an easily
observable phenomena upon which a billion dollar industry is
based. But NOBODY has independently replicated a single study
demonstrating the alleged effect. It should be *so* easy.
Don't you agree? Think, George. If homeopathic preparations
were really powerful medicine that had easily observable
effects, it would be easy to do a trial where it could be
shown that people who took the real thing showed *some*
significant effect over placebo. Any pharmaceutical will have
some effect (if only being detectable). Think.

moo

[David Wrig]

In article <12d461lm7g62kpdegs3fmbh14te1o1rnbj@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:53:40 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>(David Wright) wrote:
>
>snip...
>
>>>But the BIG difference is that where generics are
>>>available, the original drug is off-patent and thus there
>>>is COMPETITION. So there isn't the same degree of
>>>outrageous price gouging that pharma now uses, hiding
>>>behind IP as a slim justification for destroying the US
>>>healthcare system.
>>
>>There's lots of competition even in patented
>>pharmaceuticals, as each company comes out with its "me too"
>>drug -- statins, for example. Lots and lots of expensive
>>drugs that we don't really need.
>
>Actually, I'm not as hard on me-too drugs PER SE as I used to
>be. Different statins have different drug-drug interaction
>profiles and levels of efficacy. Pravastatin is not the same
>as atorvastatin.

No, but it's highly questionable that we need *all* the
statins out there right now.

>But that's not the issue. The issue is that ONLY one company
>can make atorvastatin. Period. Until the patent runs out.
>There is NO competition for that drug and thus it is THE
>biggest drug seller on the market, making the company
>BILLIONS of dollars per year.

You have to recover the hundreds of millions burned up by
testing somehow. What's your alternative? I can't figure out
how you're going to both allow anyone to make the stuff, and
still give the companies some way to make back their costs.

>Worse, because this fits in the "blockbuster" profile, it
>means other drugs fail to be developed or investigated. That
>is, statins treat a chronic disease and do NOT cure it--they
>manage lipid dyscrasias. They are taken for life. And they
>charge whatever they can get away with.
>
>Meanwhile, an infectious disease--a bacterial or fungal
>infection--that is cured via a short course of treatment is
>not interesting to study. Not enough money. Thus, multidrug
>resistant strains of Staph, strep, TB, cryptococcal
>meningitis and other infections, let alone ones that afflict
>MILLIONS but are not perceived as money makers--are ignored.

Are you sure this is the real explanation? The industry got
really complacent about infectious disease, only now we have
multidrug resistant strep and staph, meaning the battle is
rejoined, and there is plenty of money waiting to be made
for some new class of antibiotics that will handle the
resistant bugs.

>So you're NOT arguing the merits of capitalism versus
>socialism. What pharma does--and this extends to patenting
>all sorts of things that affect the development of drugs,
>diagnostics, devices, in vitro testing, etc.--is a distortion
>of patent law that destroys its intent. Reward for discovery
>is used as a shield to justify price gouging. And discovery
>is more and more narrowly defined--it must fall under the
>rubric of "blockbuster" to appease the parasites on Wall
>Street who produce nothing but shuffle money around and suck
>the cream off the top.

Patent has always implied monopoly, and monopoly has always
implied "all that the traffic will bear." OK, you don't *have*
to do it that way, but you can.

>And in terms of global public health, "globalization" should
>mean healthcare. As the world becomes smaller, do you think
>outbreaks, like Marburg in Angola, are going to remain
>geographically restricted? Or H5N1?

More the latter than the former, at least based on
previous history.

>>>>You'll have a harder time making that one stick. It's
>>>>certainly true in the case of some persons, no question,
>>>>but since only about 10% of health care dollars go to
>>>>prescription costs, even if you cut that to zero, things
>>>>are still going to be expensive and the system is still
>>>>broken.
>>>
>>>Where did you get the 10% figure?
>>
>>Newsweek.
>
>A great peer-reviewed journal, I see. So. Issue? Article?

Hell, I don't have it off hand. But I've seen the same figure
elsewhere. If you don't believe me, fine. I don't care whether
you believe me or not.

>>The meta-analysis in the Lancet was pretty damning, even
>>though it's the one the pro-homeopathy folks like to cite.
>>In any event, trying to find positive results that anyone
>>else has managed to replicate is nearly impossible. If
>>homeopathy really worked, it wouldn't be THAT hard to
>>demonstrate.
>
>Depends on your criteria for what works. Can you see though
>that you're asking about whether a SYSTEM works or not? Does
>allopathy work? You could cite a failed drug study that was
>dropped due to QT prolongation or other serious adverse
>event. Then would that mean allopathy doesn't work?

But there are plenty of allopathic remedies where they
obviously do work, whereas there is NO homeopathic remedy in
the same category. But there would be, if homeopathy worked as
wonderfully as its adherents claim.

>>And the non-existent "memory" of same.
>
>Really? You're sure of that?

Yep.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff
loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of
the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that
conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)

[Gmcarter]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:06:37 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
(David Wright) wrote:

>>Actually, I'm not as hard on me-too drugs PER SE as I used
>>to be. Different statins have different drug-drug
>>interaction profiles and levels of efficacy. Pravastatin is
>>not the same as atorvastatin.
>
>No, but it's highly questionable that we need *all* the
>statins out there right now.

How many are out there? (That haven't been taken off the
market for one reason or another.)

>>But that's not the issue. The issue is that ONLY one company
>>can make atorvastatin. Period. Until the patent runs out.
>>There is NO competition for that drug and thus it is THE
>>biggest drug seller on the market, making the company
>>BILLIONS of dollars per year.
>
>You have to recover the hundreds of millions burned up by
>testing somehow. What's your alternative? I can't figure out
>how you're going to both allow anyone to make the stuff, and
>still give the companies some way to make back their costs.

Well, first the costs of development are a TINY fraction of
the profits. A lot of the monies are put into advertising
(a dreadful idea for medicine), PR and litigation. As well
as CEO golden parachutes, etc. The profits made by the
industry and the inflationary charges of drugs WAY exceed
any other industry.

They hold our lives hostage to their greed.

Second, the costs of development are grossly inflated. In PART
through the dense thicket of patents that jack up costs for
licensing fees all along the stream of development, from in
vitro assays to animal testing to human clinical studies.

So I don't buy this "pay our price or we'll stop
investigating." Indeed, the new drug pipeline for many large
companies has dried up as they spend all their efforts on
keeping stockholders happy (little realizing that they're
screwing themselves as they screw us by failing to undertake
genuine R&D).

>>Worse, because this fits in the "blockbuster" profile, it
>>means other drugs fail to be developed or investigated. That
>>is, statins treat a chronic disease and do NOT cure it--they
>>manage lipid dyscrasias. They are taken for life. And they
>>charge whatever they can get away with.
>>
>>Meanwhile, an infectious disease--a bacterial or fungal
>>infection--that is cured via a short course of treatment is
>>not interesting to study. Not enough money. Thus, multidrug
>>resistant strains of Staph, strep, TB, cryptococcal
>>meningitis and other infections, let alone ones that afflict
>>MILLIONS but are not perceived as money makers--are ignored.
>
>Are you sure this is the real explanation? The industry got
>really complacent about infectious disease, only now we have
>multidrug resistant strep and staph, meaning the battle is
>rejoined, and there is plenty of money waiting to be made
>for some new class of antibiotics that will handle the
>resistant bugs.

No, there ISN'T -- at least not enough for the rapacious greed
of pharma as PUSHED by Wall Street. Short of a chronic,
longterm blockbuster drug that people take for life, it's NOT
interesting to the portfolio managers. Unless they can figure
a way to jack up the price enormously, as they've tried to do
with fluconazole and ciprofloxacin.

>>So you're NOT arguing the merits of capitalism versus
>>socialism. What pharma does--and this extends to patenting
>>all sorts of things that affect the development of drugs,
>>diagnostics, devices, in vitro testing, etc.--is a
>>distortion of patent law that destroys its intent. Reward
>>for discovery is used as a shield to justify price gouging.
>>And discovery is more and more narrowly defined--it must
>>fall under the rubric of "blockbuster" to appease the
>>parasites on Wall Street who produce nothing but shuffle
>>money around and suck the cream off the top.
>
>Patent has always implied monopoly, and monopoly has always
>implied "all that the traffic will bear." OK, you don't
>*have* to do it that way, but you can.

I just wish people wouldn't confuse capitalism/free markets
and competition with what pharma is doing. They're not the
same by any stretch.

Patent law is a fine idea. But like any good idea, it is open
to being warped and distorted by greed.

>>And in terms of global public health, "globalization" should
>>mean healthcare. As the world becomes smaller, do you think
>>outbreaks, like Marburg in Angola, are going to remain
>>geographically restricted? Or H5N1?
>
>More the latter than the former, at least based on
>previous history.

Perhaps. Better to try to avoid both!

>>>>>You'll have a harder time making that one stick. It's
>>>>>certainly true in the case of some persons, no question,
>>>>>but since only about 10% of health care dollars go to
>>>>>prescription costs, even if you cut that to zero, things
>>>>>are still going to be expensive and the system is still
>>>>>broken.
>>>>
>>>>Where did you get the 10% figure?
>>>
>>>Newsweek.
>>
>>A great peer-reviewed journal, I see. So. Issue? Article?
>
>Hell, I don't have it off hand. But I've seen the same figure
>elsewhere. If you don't believe me, fine. I don't care
>whether you believe me or not.

OK. I don't believe you. Don't take it personally.

>>>The meta-analysis in the Lancet was pretty damning, even
>>>though it's the one the pro-homeopathy folks like to cite.
>>>In any event, trying to find positive results that anyone
>>>else has managed to replicate is nearly impossible. If
>>>homeopathy really worked, it wouldn't be THAT hard to
>>>demonstrate.
>>
>>Depends on your criteria for what works. Can you see though
>>that you're asking about whether a SYSTEM works or not? Does
>>allopathy work? You could cite a failed drug study that was
>>dropped due to QT prolongation or other serious adverse
>>event. Then would that mean allopathy doesn't work?
>
>But there are plenty of allopathic remedies where they
>obviously do work, whereas there is NO homeopathic remedy in
>the same category. But there would be, if homeopathy worked
>as wonderfully as its adherents claim.

LOL. OK, you may be right. But I have provided some citations
that suggest evidence for efficacy for some remedies when,
based on the notion that the multiple dilutions render ANY
homeopathic agent essentially inert, there should NEVER be
EVER any evidence for efficacy. And yet there are some data.

Does this mean there is something wrong with the vaunted DBPC
methodology? What might that suggest for DBPC methods used for
drug trials?

Or might it mean that somehow, despite the very understandable
objections, homeopathic techniques can have some effect (and
therefore, shaking/diluting does not necessarily result in an
inert substance)?

It's a set of interesting questions that arise that, from a
scientific point of view, are intriguing and, to a certain
extent at least, being investigated. Except for the thornier
question of the limitations of DBPC design.

>>>And the non-existent "memory" of same.
>>
>>Really? You're sure of that?
>
>Yep.

A man of faith!

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:08:39 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
(David Wright) wrote:

>In article <kctd611ek7lmd80oaie3e5sjgo65acjamt@4ax.com>,
>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>Another odd one. Why would a mouthwash with a homeopathic
>>preparation work better than one without?
>
>The abstract doesn't give us enough information to know. For
>one thing, it doesn't say what dilution the remedy used. And
>if it was only, say, 1X, that's a big difference from 12C.
>Also, what's in it?

More info on the study here:
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/CP/CP05-01.pdf

Sorry to say, I have not found the full paper on the net.
Might be possible to email the author.

>Still, it was a pretty small study. Weird things happen when
>the study group is too small.

Tell that to the pharmaceutical industry! lol....

George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>That evidence is very, very poor. The claim is that there
>>is an obvious, unambiguous effect. Yet the only
>>"evidence" is a few (after 200 years!) never
>>independently replicated trials.
>
> Again, so you claim. You may well be right.

I really wish you'd invest some time in this. It's a hugely
important point, no? I can't do more than point out that it
would be such huge news if a positive study were independently
replicated that it should be easy to find. I've looked. Many
people have looked. People would justifiably shove my claim
back down my throat if there was any replication. There isn't.
Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that homeopathic advocates
haven't weasled some type of study into independent
replication. Once. But they haven't.
>
>>Why don't you, at least, try to educate yourself on the
>>subject? You don't understand the significance of my
>>"assertion". If it's incorrect, it would be front page news.
>
> Oh, I already addressed this. You claim: it doesn't make
> sense, therefore it can't work.

I claim that physics would be devastated if it were true. Ask
almost any physicist. Your above parody of my position is
touching. But there is no theory and no reproducible effect
save billions in sales.
>
> I assert, it may not appear to make sense, but if it works
> (that is, DBPC study yields positive, stat sig results), we
> need to THEN continue investigating why it works.

Correct.

> As I say, there are some data suggesting that it works, in a
> clinical sense.

No good data. No replication. No test that's ever been done
that shows that can confirm what is claimed to be obvious.
>
> There are AMPLE cases throughout history where people
> SCREAMED it could not be so. Yet, then evidence accumulated
> that, nope. It does appear to be so.

This is a common misrepresentation of the way science
works. It's human nature to take a side and defend it.
Examples of pathological science abound. But, empirical
reality is your friend. Stay on its side and you'll acheive
scientific Nirvana.

> Subatomic physics and cosmology are replete with such
> examples.

Not really. SR was accepted quite quickly. Same for QM.

> And, moo. Why "moo"? LOL. Just curious.

Not really sure. It's odd. Got tired of barking, I guess. Many
years ago I created a bar called "Bovine Sex Club". I've been
partial to cow imagery ever since. (No, not the sex part. That
was simply a shameless marketing ploy. It worked.)

Le 3ieme Moo

Pourquois le troisieme? I've absolutely no clue on that one.

[Gmcarter]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:00:16 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>That evidence is very, very poor. The claim is that there
>>>is an obvious, unambiguous effect. Yet the only "evidence"
>>>is a few (after 200 years!) never independently replicated
>>>trials.
>>
>> Again, so you claim. You may well be right.
>
>I really wish you'd invest some time in this. It's a hugely
>important point, no?

I'd say it's critical to your argument. Others have insisted
that I provide information to support my arguments. I have
endeavored to do so. I do so again, below.

Is it unfair for me to ask you to do the same?

> can't do more than point out that it would be such huge news
> if a positive study were independently replicated that it
> should be easy to find. I've looked. Many people have
> looked. People would justifiably shove my claim back down my
> throat if there was any replication. There isn't. Frankly,
> I'm a bit surprised that homeopathic advocates haven't
> weasled some type of study into independent replication.
> Once. But they haven't.

Well, I've heard this argument before but it doesn't really
fly. Even if there WERE two studies that were replicated,
folks who have determined unequivocally that homeopathy is
impossible and thus cannot work no matter what would
undoubtedly find ways in which the two studies were different
and therefore not exactly replicated.

So a couple of studies would no more prove the point.

However, it may also be possible that studies looking at say,
rheumatic disease and homeopathic treatments have been studied
more than once. A review article abstract is appended.

>>>Why don't you, at least, try to educate yourself on
>>>the subject? You don't understand the significance of
>>>my "assertion". If it's incorrect, it would be front
>>>page news.
>>
>> Oh, I already addressed this. You claim: it doesn't make
>> sense, therefore it can't work.
>
>I claim that physics would be devastated if it were true. Ask
>almost any physicist. Your above parody of my position is
>touching. But there is no theory and no reproducible effect
>save billions in sales.

Ah....reproducible effect--may be closer to medicinal reality.
I think there are some data that provide positive evidence.

Again, I don't claim that you are wrong nor do I support your
conclusion.

>> I assert, it may not appear to make sense, but if it works
>> (that is, DBPC study yields positive, stat sig results), we
>> need to THEN continue investigating why it works.
>
>Correct.

And I hope that effort is carrying on.

>> As I say, there are some data suggesting that it works, in
>> a clinical sense.
>
>No good data. No replication. No test that's ever been done
>that shows that can confirm what is claimed to be obvious.

You keep repeating that but have YET to comment specifically
on any of the examples I've provided.

>> There are AMPLE cases throughout history where people
>> SCREAMED it could not be so. Yet, then evidence accumulated
>> that, nope. It does appear to be so.
>
>This is a common misrepresentation of the way science
>works. It's human nature to take a side and defend it.
>Examples of pathological science abound. But, empirical
>reality is your friend. Stay on its side and you'll acheive
>scientific Nirvana.

LOL. I heartily recommend the same for you! On this, I think,
we essentially agree.

>> Subatomic physics and cosmology are replete with such
>> examples.
>
>Not really. SR was accepted quite quickly. Same for QM.

But not GR. And not all aspects of QM.

>> And, moo. Why "moo"? LOL. Just curious.
>
>Not really sure. It's odd. Got tired of barking, I guess.
>Many years ago I created a bar called "Bovine Sex Club". I've
>been partial to cow imagery ever since. (No, not the sex
>part. That was simply a shameless marketing ploy. It worked.)
>
>Le 3ieme Moo
>
>Pourquois le troisieme? I've absolutely no clue on that one.

Ah-ha! Now I can accuse you shamelessly of bestiality and
discredit all your views! You fell into my trap, you perverted
SOB. Orwellian, no?

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:00:16 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>That evidence is very, very poor. The claim is that there
>>>is an obvious, unambiguous effect. Yet the only "evidence"
>>>is a few (after 200 years!) never independently replicated
>>>trials.
>>
>> Again, so you claim. You may well be right.
>
>I really wish you'd invest some time in this. It's a hugely
>important point, no?

Oh...forgot the abstract:

Holdcraft LC, Assefi N, Buchwald D. Complementary and
alternative medicine in fibromyalgia and related syndromes.
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2003 Aug;17(4):667-83.

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Harborview
Medical Center, University of Washington School of Medicine,
Box 359797, 325 Ninth Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2499, USA.
holdcraf@u.washington.edu

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has gained
increasing popularity, particularly among individuals with
fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) for which traditional medicine has
generally been ineffective. A systematic review of randomized
controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs on CAM studies for FMS
was conducted to evaluate the empirical evidence for their
effectiveness. Few RCTs achieved high scores on the CONSORT, a
standardized evaluation of the quality of methodology
reporting. Acupuncture, some herbal and nutritional
supplements (magnesium, SAMe) and massage therapy have the
best evidence for effectiveness with FMS. Other CAM therapies
have either been evaluated in only one RCT with positive
results (Chlorella, biofeedback, relaxation), in multiple RCTs
with mixed results (magnet therapies), or have positive
results from studies with methodological flaws (homeopathy,
botanical oils, balneotherapy, anthocyanidins, dietary
modifications). Lastly, other CAM therapies have neither
well-designed studies nor positive results and are not
currently recommended for FMS treatment (chiropractic care).

[Gmcarter]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:39:49 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote: snip...
>>>What would you consider "evidence"? Look for yourself.
>>>Google is your friend.
>>
>> I have suggested the same. I've even spoon-fed you data
>> from PubMed. You ignore it.
>
>I didn't ignore it. I correctly pointed out that there is no
>independent replication. Have you looked into this assertion?
>No, you haven't.

You provided no basis for the assertion, no evidence (e.g.,
meta analysis, review paper). So why should I?

>...For homeopathic claims about the memory of water to be
>correct, virtually all of physics would have to be rewritten.
>It would be a wholesale change in basic atomic theory.

I don't think so. Have you read some of the recent articles on
the shape of water molecules? I've read some interesting ones
in Science over the last couple of months. NOT in support of
homeopathy per se but interesting physics. Sorry, I don't
recall the cites.

>>
>>>I am winning the argument because you are not responding to
>>>my assertion with anything factual. The whining is an
>>>adorable attempt at diversion.
>>
>> LOL. Nonsense. I have responded to MANY of your assertions,
>> despite the fact that a lot of them womble off into the
>> mists of your odd tangential mind.
>
>I was speaking of my specific assertion that nobody
>candifferentiate between a highly diluted substance (>11C)
>and the original solute. Nobody.

In your view, and I well understand the face-value logic of
it, NO homeopathic remedy can EVER work because it doesn't
make sense.

I understand the argument.

My response has been to show a small handful of clinical
studies, DBPC, randomized that show evidence for efficacy of
some nostrums for specific conditions.

So if even ONE remedy appears to work, it raises more
questions, doesn't it?

snip...
>Divert as you will. My claim is correct. Why not admit you
>just don't care enough to research the topic for yourself?
>I'm fine with that.

LOL...if you were so well-versed in the topic, YOU would
support your argument rather than just a constant refrain!

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:45:29 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>>>> It says nothing about whether homeopathy has any value or
>>>> not in terms of clinical efficacy. That, though, appears
>>>> to be the case for the data below.
>>>
>>>It wasn't supposed to. The point is the lack of research by
>>>the people earning millions.
>>
>> You could say that about the pharmaceutical industry. The
>> vast majority of prescriptions are "off-label" and
>> physicians are so encouraged by the industry.
>
>The pharmaceutical industry doesn't spend significantly on
>research?

R&D is a small part of their overall budget. Depends on the
company, but the bigger pharma companies spend about as much
on marketing, litigation, advertising, etc., ad nauseam. See
my other post. Lots of good treatments of how big pharma has
been failing us DRAMATICALLY while screwing the crap out of
people. Essentially holding our lives hostage to their greed.

This is not to say that a reasonable profit cannot be made
or that R&D cost recovery is not a part of sensible
business plans.

It IS to say we could have a more massive investment in
healthcare, clinical studies, etc. But nope, gotta blow up
Iraq, for example, in an illegal, concocted and elective war.

>>>> SOMETHING happened though it's not really clear what.
>>>
>>>Bad studies. Never replicated. *yawn*
>>
>> LOL. Why is it a bad study? Are you sure it was never
>> replicated?
>
>It's bad science because there is a claim of an easily
>observable phenomena upon which a billion dollar industry is
>based. But NOBODY has independently replicated a single study
>demonstrating the alleged effect.

Well, I have some cites that suggest you're incorrect in
this. See,

Jacobs J, Jimenez LM, Gloyd SS, Gale JL, Crothers D. Treatment
of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: A
randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics
1994;93:719-25.

Duggan C, Kleinman RE. Homeopathy study questions. Pediatrics
1994;94:963. (Lett)

Jacobs J, Jimenez LM, Malthouse S, et al. Homeopathic
treatment of acute childhood diarrhea: Results from a clinical
trial in Nepal. J Altern Complement Med 2000;6:131-9.

Interesting review (since you failed to offer any evidence):
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/CP/CP05-01.pdf

>It should be *so* easy. Don't you agree? Think, George. If
>homeopathic preparations were really powerful medicine that
>had easily observable effects, it would be easy to do a trial
>where it could be shown that people who took the real thing
>showed *some* significant effect over placebo. Any
>pharmaceutical will have some effect (if only being
>detectable). Think.

I am. You're clinging fiercely to your belief system. I am at
equipoise on the issue...from the above pdf,

"Because of the inconclusive nature of the data thus far, the
belief system of the individual will most likely influence the
interpretation of the results -- opponents of homeopathy are
unlikely to be swayed by a tendency toward positive trials,
whereas its adherents are more likely to be dismissive of
negative results."

Neither approach is good science.

I think the ONE thing we may agree on is that better research
and data are needed. They note:

"There are only a few good studies (42,58,60) showing possible
benefits of homeopathy when prescribed by trained
practitioners for a selected number of specific conditions in
children."

That's three studies that show something possible. Of others
that support it. It may be that ALL studies are all flawed and
therefore no homeopathic remedy works.

That's kinda stretching statistics a bit.

But according to your not unreasonable assertion regarding the
fundamentals of homeopathy being impossible, any one positive
study rejects the null hypothesis, yes?

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:58:10 -0400, "tech27"
<tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:

>
>"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:Z9V9e.7691$9G.621718@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>Happy Dog should by now have come to the realization that the
>OP is a moron engaging in verbal masturbation while suffering
>from the mental equivalent of erectile dysfunction.
>
>Engaging this idiot any further will damage the credibility
>of Mr. Dog.

LOL. Such a control freak!!

What. You scared?

Oh dear! A thot crept in, crapped and crept out...

[Tech27]

"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Z9V9e.7691$9G.621718@news20.bellglobal.com...

Happy Dog should by now have come to the realization that the
OP is a moron engaging in verbal masturbation while suffering
from the mental equivalent of erectile dysfunction.

Engaging this idiot any further will damage the credibility
of Mr. Dog.

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:08:39 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
> (David Wright) wrote:
>
>>Still, it was a pretty small study. Weird things happen when
>>the study group is too small.
>
> Tell that to the pharmaceutical industry! lol....

Which is what I think your real issues are about. I'll point
out that few, if any, skeptics here give top marks to
pharmaceutical giants or the FDA and its equivalents.

moo

[Gmcarter]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:18:06 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>>>>>That evidence is very, very poor. The claim is that there
>>>>>is an obvious, unambiguous effect. Yet the only
>>>>>"evidence" is a few (after 200 years!) never
>>>>>independently replicated trials.
>>>>
>>>> Again, so you claim. You may well be right.
>>>
>>>I really wish you'd invest some time in this. It's a hugely
>>>important point, no?
>>
>> I'd say it's critical to your argument. Others have
>> insisted that I provide information to support my
>> arguments. I have endeavored to do so. I do so again,
>> below.
>>
>> Is it unfair for me to ask you to do the same?
>
>I can do no more than tell you won't find a single replicated
>trial if you look. Have you looked?

As far as I am able to so far. More than you may have done?

You offer nothing in return but an admonition for me to do
more work while you do nothing? LOL. It wouldn't change your
mind even if there WERE replicated data.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:18:06 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

snip...

>Like any other discovery, they would have to eat crow if the
>evidence was there. But it just isn't. C'mon, 200 years of
>claims of obvious and profound effects and not one, repeat,
>NOT ONE replicated positive trial or demonstration of an
>ability to show thyat there's anything happening in a
>controlled setting. The studies done are not particularly
>expensive.

First, clinical trials as a tool for evaluating ANY medicine
is very recent. Maybe some 50 years?

Second, why are the studies not particularly expensive?

>They're the sort of thing that scientists dream of. (A new
>discovery.) We're talking Nobel Prize here. Yet, nothing.

Indeed!

>> However, it may also be possible that studies looking at
>> say, rheumatic disease and homeopathic treatments have been
>> studied more than once. A review article abstract is
>> appended.
>
>You still don't get it. The empirical reality is just what's
>expected. A handful of positive studies unreplicated and a
>lot more negative ones. When testing for subtle effects, it's
>almost certain to get some odd results.

Hmmm....you don't get it. Some of the results suggest a
positive effect and the difference is p<0.05, i.e.,
statistically significant.

I don't think the effects of homeopathic remedies are as
startling or as strong as either you assert others assert or
perhaps as homeopaths may assert. But if there is ANY effect,
it draws up some questions.

>>>I claim that physics would be devastated if it were true.
>>>Ask almost any physicist. Your above parody of my position
>>>is touching. But there is no theory and no reproducible
>>>effect save billions in sales.
>>
>> Ah....reproducible effect--may be closer to medicinal
>> reality. I think there are some data that provide positive
>> evidence.
>
>You think this because you have no experience evaluating
>scientific claims.

LOL. How do you know?

>The "positive evidence" that impresses you is woefully weak.
>Especially so when you compare it to the claims.
>
>>>> I assert, it may not appear to make sense, but if it
>>>> works (that is, DBPC study yields positive, stat sig
>>>> results), we need to THEN continue investigating why it
>>>> works.
>>>
>>>Correct.
>>
>> And I hope that effort is carrying on.
>
>It isn't. Huge manufacturers, like Boiron, do SFA research
>into the basic claims. Do you ever wonder how they do quality
>control on products that cannot be fifferentiated from each
>other or from the original solute?

fifferentiated??

LOL...sorry. It does pose an interesting conundrum.

>>>> As I say, there are some data suggesting that it works,
>>>> in a clinical sense.
>>>
>>>No good data. No replication. No test that's ever been done
>>>that shows that can confirm what is claimed to be obvious.
>>
>> You keep repeating that but have YET to comment
>> specifically on any of the examples I've provided.
>
>Yes I have. They suck from the POV of scientific evidence.

"They suck" is hardly a good analysis.

Did you review the pediatric analysis?

>>>This is a common misrepresentation of the way science
>>>works. It's human nature to take a side and defend it.
>>>Examples of pathological science abound. But, empirical
>>>reality is your friend. Stay on its side and you'll acheive
>>>scientific Nirvana.
>>
>> LOL. I heartily recommend the same for you! On this, I
>> think, we essentially agree.
>
>The empirical data says that highly diluted substances are
>indistinguishable from the original solute. This has been
>shown in *millions* of biological and chemical experiments
>where a "memory of water" would consistently show up.

OK. You're convinced. I'm not. So what?

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:39:55 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>I didn't ignore it. I correctly pointed out that there is
>>>no independent replication. Have you looked into this
>>>assertion? No, you haven't.
>>
>> You provided no basis for the assertion, no evidence (e.g.,
>> meta analysis, review paper). So why should I?
>
>I *have* provided evidence that they do not exist.

That's a first! LOL....

>If they were there, they would be *easy* to find! I cite the
>same evidence for the assertion that there is no replicated
>demonstration, in a controlled setting, of a functioning
>perpetual motion machine. This, again, is the "bassis for
>assertion". Do you get it now?

Nope. I think you're just being lazy.

>> I don't think so. Have you read some of the recent articles
>> on the shape of water molecules? I've read some interesting
>> ones in Science over the last couple of months. NOT in
>> support of homeopathy per se but interesting physics.
>> Sorry, I don't recall the cites.
>
>Yes. Some recent research has put yet another nail in the
>claim that there is any accommodation in physics for "memory
>of water" claims.
>
>http://www.randi.org/jr/032505really.html#1

God, his sneering diatribe is at turns funny and tiresome, but
not really convincing. He sounds too much like Rush Limbaugh.

I certainly agree that a lot of the "indications" he mocks are
pretty ludicrous from today's perspective. But then, the
pharmaceutical industry has been known to create "disorders"
to sell drugs. (Hell, even twist the risks associated with
disorders like the nefarious scams of Serono to sell its
horrifically overpriced growth hormone and a manufacturer of a
BIA device to increase sales....that's different though, being
fraud and not merely whimsy.)

> www.mbi-berlin.de/en/research/projects/2-04/highlights/pres-
> semitteilung_water_nature_englisch.pdf

This is interesting--thanks! (Finally, a little something from
you besides snottiness and reassertion of claims!)

So water has a memory. Experimentally observed but only in the
femtosecond range under the conditions of the experiments so
far designed. And thus applying no credibility for the
underlying basis of homeopathy.

>>>I was speaking of my specific assertion that nobody can
>>>differentiate between a highly diluted substance (>11C) and
>>>the original solute. Nobody.
>>
>> In your view, and I well understand the face-value logic of
>> it, NO homeopathic remedy can EVER work because it doesn't
>> make sense. I understand the argument.
>
>That's an unadorable misrepresentation of my position and the
>position of the vast majority of scientists around the world.
>So get stuffed.

Back to the charming attitude!

OK, then restate your position. I don't think it is in the
slightest a misrepresentation.

>> My response has been to show a small handful of clinical
>> studies, DBPC, randomized that show evidence for efficacy
>> of some nostrums for specific conditions.
>
>Your response is to show that you don't understand why
>there *should* be this sort of evidence for something that
>doesn't work. If you look around, you'll find it for other
>dead end claims. Look at Touch Therapy or other "energy
>medicine" claims.

Well, you can keep insisting it DOES NOT WORK til your blue in
the face! Go right ahead.

I simply do not believe you. Nor do I believe the
homeopaths. Yet.

>> So if even ONE remedy appears to work, it raises more
>> questions, doesn't it?
>
>No, it doesn't. It's to be expected.

>> snip...
>>>Divert as you will. My claim is correct. Why not admit you
>>>just don't care enough to research the topic for yourself?
>>>I'm fine with that.
>>
>> LOL...if you were so well-versed in the topic, YOU would
>> support your argument rather than just a constant refrain!
>
>I have supported my argument. The kind of evidence that
>should exist does not exist. The claims are dramatic.
>Obvious and profound phenomena are there to be observed.
>But they vanish under a skeptical eye. It happens all the
>time. You don't see this fact as a real problem. I'm not
>saying that you're a kook. But to refuse to accept this
>reality is classic kook behaviour. I suspect that you just
>haven't been around these sort of claims long enough to get
>tired of the hype.

Possibly. I certainly have never scrutinized homeopathy as
closely as you. But as I do so, I remain neither accepting of
their claims nor of your rejection.

George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5hhh6116fkng5fn0bia569gn13dj7uo0gt@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:00:16 -0400, "Happy Dog"
> <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>That evidence is very, very poor. The claim is that there
>>>>is an obvious, unambiguous effect. Yet the only "evidence"
>>>>is a few (after 200 years!) never independently replicated
>>>>trials.
>>>
>>> Again, so you claim. You may well be right.
>>
>>I really wish you'd invest some time in this. It's a hugely
>>important point, no?
>
> I'd say it's critical to your argument. Others have insisted
> that I provide information to support my arguments. I have
> endeavored to do so. I do so again, below.
>
> Is it unfair for me to ask you to do the same?
>
>> can't do more than point out that it would be such huge
>> news if a positive study were independently replicated that
>> it should be easy to find. I've looked. Many people have
>> looked. People would justifiably shove my claim back down
>> my throat if there was any replication. There isn't.
>> Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that homeopathic advocates
>> haven't weasled some type of study into independent
>> replication. Once. But they haven't.
>
> Well, I've heard this argument before but it doesn't really
> fly. Even if there WERE two studies that were replicated,
> folks who have determined unequivocally that homeopathy is
> impossible and thus cannot work no matter what would
> undoubtedly find ways in which the two studies were
> different and therefore not exactly replicated.
>
> So a couple of studies would no more prove the point.
>
> However, it may also be possible that studies looking at
> say, rheumatic disease and homeopathic treatments have been
> studied more than once. A review article abstract is
> appended.
>
>
>>>>Why don't you, at least, try to educate yourself on
>>>>the subject? You don't understand the significance of
>>>>my "assertion". If it's incorrect, it would be front
>>>>page news.
>>>
>>> Oh, I already addressed this. You claim: it doesn't make
>>> sense, therefore it can't work.
>>
>>I claim that physics would be devastated if it were true.
>>Ask almost any physicist. Your above parody of my position
>>is touching. But there is no theory and no reproducible
>>effect save billions in sales.
>
> Ah....reproducible effect--may be closer to medicinal
> reality. I think there are some data that provide positive
> evidence.
>
> Again, I don't claim that you are wrong nor do I support
> your conclusion.
>
>>> I assert, it may not appear to make sense, but if it works
>>> (that is, DBPC study yields positive, stat sig results),
>>> we need to THEN continue investigating why it works.
>>
>>Correct.
>
> And I hope that effort is carrying on.
>
>>> As I say, there are some data suggesting that it works, in
>>> a clinical sense.
>>
>>No good data. No replication. No test that's ever been done
>>that shows that can confirm what is claimed to be obvious.
>
> You keep repeating that but have YET to comment specifically
> on any of the examples I've provided.
>
>>> There are AMPLE cases throughout history where people
>>> SCREAMED it could not be so. Yet, then evidence
>>> accumulated that, nope. It does appear to be so.
>>
>>This is a common misrepresentation of the way science works.
>>It's human nature to take a side and defend it. Examples of
>>pathological science abound. But, empirical reality is your
>>friend. Stay on its side and you'll acheive scientific
>>Nirvana.
>
> LOL. I heartily recommend the same for you! On this, I
> think, we essentially agree.
>
>>> Subatomic physics and cosmology are replete with such
>>> examples.
>>
>>Not really. SR was accepted quite quickly. Same for QM.
>
> But not GR. And not all aspects of QM.
>
>>> And, moo. Why "moo"? LOL. Just curious.
>>
>>Not really sure. It's odd. Got tired of barking, I guess.
>>Many years ago I created a bar called "Bovine Sex Club".
>>I've been partial to cow imagery ever since. (No, not the
>>sex part. That was simply a shameless marketing ploy. It
>>worked.)
>>
>>Le 3ieme Moo
>>
>>Pourquois le troisieme? I've absolutely no clue on that one.
>
> Ah-ha! Now I can accuse you shamelessly of bestiality and
> discredit all your views! You fell into my trap, you
> perverted SOB. Orwellian, no?
>
> George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>>>>That evidence is very, very poor. The claim is that there
>>>>is an obvious, unambiguous effect. Yet the only "evidence"
>>>>is a few (after 200 years!) never independently replicated
>>>>trials.
>>>
>>> Again, so you claim. You may well be right.
>>
>>I really wish you'd invest some time in this. It's a hugely
>>important point, no?
>
> I'd say it's critical to your argument. Others have insisted
> that I provide information to support my arguments. I have
> endeavored to do so. I do so again, below.
>
> Is it unfair for me to ask you to do the same?

I can do no more than tell you won't find a single replicated
trial if you look. Have you looked?
>
>>I've looked. Many people have looked. People would
>>justifiably shove my claim back down my throat if there was
>>any replication. There isn't. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised
>>that homeopathic advocates haven't weasled some type of
>>study into independent replication. Once. But they haven't.
>
> Well, I've heard this argument before but it doesn't really
> fly. Even if there WERE two studies that were replicated,
> folks who have determined unequivocally that homeopathy is
> impossible and thus cannot work no matter what would
> undoubtedly find ways in which the two studies were
> different and therefore not exactly replicated. So a couple
> of studies would no more prove the point.

Like any other discovery, they would have to eat crow if
the evidence was there. But it just isn't. C'mon, 200
years of claims of obvious and profound effects and not
one, repeat, NOT ONE replicated positive trial or
demonstration of an ability to show thyat there's anything
happening in a controlled setting. The studies done are
not particularly expensive. They're the sort of thing that
scientists dream of. (A new discovery.) We're talking
Nobel Prize here. Yet, nothing.

> However, it may also be possible that studies looking at
> say, rheumatic disease and homeopathic treatments have been
> studied more than once. A review article abstract is
> appended.

You still don't get it. The empirical reality is just what's
expected. A handful of positive studies unreplicated and a lot
more negative ones. When testing for subtle effects, it's
almost certain to get some odd results.

>>I claim that physics would be devastated if it were true.
>>Ask almost any physicist. Your above parody of my position
>>is touching. But there is no theory and no reproducible
>>effect save billions in sales.
>
> Ah....reproducible effect--may be closer to medicinal
> reality. I think there are some data that provide positive
> evidence.

You think this because you have no experience evaluating
scientific claims. The "positive evidence" that impresses
you is woefully weak. Especially so when you compare it to
the claims.

>>> I assert, it may not appear to make sense, but if it works
>>> (that is, DBPC study yields positive, stat sig results),
>>> we need to THEN continue investigating why it works.
>>
>>Correct.
>
> And I hope that effort is carrying on.

It isn't. Huge manufacturers, like Boiron, do SFA research
into the basic claims. Do you ever wonder how they do quality
control on products that cannot be fifferentiated from each
other or from the original solute?
>
>>> As I say, there are some data suggesting that it works, in
>>> a clinical sense.
>>
>>No good data. No replication. No test that's ever been done
>>that shows that can confirm what is claimed to be obvious.
>
> You keep repeating that but have YET to comment specifically
> on any of the examples I've provided.

Yes I have. They suck from the POV of scientific evidence.
>
>>This is a common misrepresentation of the way science works.
>>It's human nature to take a side and defend it. Examples of
>>pathological science abound. But, empirical reality is your
>>friend. Stay on its side and you'll acheive scientific
>>Nirvana.
>
> LOL. I heartily recommend the same for you! On this, I
> think, we essentially agree.

The empirical data says that highly diluted substances are
indistinguishable from the original solute. This has been
shown in *millions* of biological and chemical experiments
where a "memory of water" would consistently show up.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>That evidence is very, very poor. The claim is that there
>>>>is an obvious, unambiguous effect. Yet the only "evidence"
>>>>is a few (after 200 years!) never independently replicated
>>>>trials.
>>>
>>> Again, so you claim. You may well be right.
>>
>>I really wish you'd invest some time in this. It's a hugely
>>important point, no?
>
> Oh...forgot the abstract:

Did you read the GD thing? This is scraping the proverbial
bottom as far as evidence is concerned.

"> or have positive results from studies with
methodological flaws
> (homeopathy, botanical oils, balneotherapy, anthocyanidins,
> dietary modifications)."

The effects are claimed to be dramatic and obvious. Yet they
vanish in the light of scientific investigation.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>I didn't ignore it. I correctly pointed out that there is no
>>independent replication. Have you looked into this
>>assertion? No, you haven't.
>
> You provided no basis for the assertion, no evidence (e.g.,
> meta analysis, review paper). So why should I?

I *have* provided evidence that they do not exist. If they
were there, they would be *easy* to find! I cite the same
evidence for the assertion that there is no replicated
demonstration, in a controlled setting, of a functioning
perpetual motion machine. This, again, is the "bassis for
assertion". Do you get it now?
>
> I don't think so. Have you read some of the recent articles
> on the shape of water molecules? I've read some interesting
> ones in Science over the last couple of months. NOT in
> support of homeopathy per se but interesting physics. Sorry,
> I don't recall the cites.

Yes. Some recent research has put yet another nail in the
claim that there is any accommodation in physics for "memory
of water" claims.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032505really.html#1

www.mbi-berlin.de/en/research/projects/
2-04/highlights/pressemitteilung_water_nature_englisch.pdf

>>I was speaking of my specific assertion that nobody can
>>differentiate between a highly diluted substance (>11C) and
>>the original solute. Nobody.
>
> In your view, and I well understand the face-value logic of
> it, NO homeopathic remedy can EVER work because it doesn't
> make sense. I understand the argument.

That's an unadorable misrepresentation of my position and the
position of the vast majority of scientists around the world.
So get stuffed.
>
> My response has been to show a small handful of clinical
> studies, DBPC, randomized that show evidence for efficacy of
> some nostrums for specific conditions.

Your response is to show that you don't understand why
there *should* be this sort of evidence for something that
doesn't work. If you look around, you'll find it for other
dead end claims. Look at Touch Therapy or other "energy
medicine" claims.
>
> So if even ONE remedy appears to work, it raises more
> questions, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. It's to be expected.
>
> snip...
>>Divert as you will. My claim is correct. Why not admit you
>>just don't care enough to research the topic for yourself?
>>I'm fine with that.
>
> LOL...if you were so well-versed in the topic, YOU would
> support your argument rather than just a constant refrain!

I have supported my argument. The kind of evidence that should
exist does not exist. The claims are dramatic. Obvious and
profound phenomena are there to be observed. But they vanish
under a skeptical eye. It happens all the time. You don't see
this fact as a real problem. I'm not saying that you're a
kook. But to refuse to accept this reality is classic kook
behaviour. I suspect that you just haven't been around these
sort of claims long enough to get tired of the hype.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>It wasn't supposed to. The point is the lack of research
>>>>by the people earning millions.
>>>
>>> You could say that about the pharmaceutical industry. The
>>> vast majority of prescriptions are "off-label" and
>>> physicians are so encouraged by the industry.
>>
>>The pharmaceutical industry doesn't spend significantly on
>>research?
>
> R&D is a small part of their overall budget.

The actual dollars spent are huge though. There's no parallel
in the homeopathic remedy industry. Think about it. They claim
that water has a memory that lasts years. They claim that this
allows them to manufactur products for which there are claims
of obvious and repeatable effects due to said memory of water.
Yet they don't lift a finger to study this. After Benveniste,
whom they dumped when he started making testable claims,
they've done SFA in the field.

> It IS to say we could have a more massive investment in
> healthcare, clinical studies, etc. But nope, gotta blow
> up Iraq, for example, in an illegal, concocted and
> elective war.

That's not the fault of drug manufacturers. I agree that, like
most massive corporations, they're inefficient though.

>>It's bad science because there is a claim of an easily
>>observable phenomena upon which a billion dollar industry is
>>based. But NOBODY has independently replicated a single
>>study demonstrating the alleged effect.
>
> Well, I have some cites that suggest you're incorrect in
> this. See,

I've looked. They're not independently replicated. They show a
small effect when the claims are that there are huge effects.

> Interesting review (since you failed to offer any evidence):
> http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/CP/CP05-01.pdf
>
>>It should be *so* easy. Don't you agree? Think, George. If
>>homeopathic preparations were really powerful medicine that
>>had easily observable effects, it would be easy to do a
>>trial where it could be shown that people who took the real
>>thing showed *some* significant effect over placebo. Any
>>pharmaceutical will have some effect (if only being
>>detectable). Think.
>
> I am. You're clinging fiercely to your belief system. I am
> at equipoise on the issue...from the above pdf,

Please address my statement above in detail. Show where I'm
clinging to any belief.

> "Because of the inconclusive nature of the data thus far,
> the belief system of the individual will most likely
> influence the interpretation of the results -- opponents of
> homeopathy are unlikely to be swayed by a tendency toward
> positive trials, whereas its adherents are more likely to be
> dismissive of negative results."
>
> Neither approach is good science. I think the ONE thing we
> may agree on is that better research and data are needed.
> They note:

The "adherents" should be doing serious trials to demonstrate
the basic claims. The "opponents" need do little but point out
that this isn't being done. C'mon guys, just ONE independently
replicated study show ANY effect. But, no, they can't or
won't. (Look at the Josephson debacle.) Odd, eh?

> "There are only a few good studies (42,58,60) showing
> possible benefits of homeopathy when prescribed by trained
> practitioners for a selected number of specific conditions
> in children."
>
> That's three studies that show something possible. Of others
> that support it. It may be that ALL studies are all flawed
> and therefore no homeopathic remedy works. That's kinda
> stretching statistics a bit.

Nope. Not when it comes to subtle effects. Happens all the
time. Look at magno-therapy, Touch Therapy and prayer.
>
> But according to your not unreasonable assertion regarding
> the fundamentals of homeopathy being impossible, any one
> positive study rejects the null hypothesis, yes?

If it's repeatedly independently replicated, yes. (It would
only take a couple of independent replications to start an
avalance of research.) Physics, as we know it, will undergo a
radical change.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> I'd say it's critical to your argument. Others have
>>> insisted that I provide information to support my
>>> arguments. I have endeavored to do so. I do so again,
>>> below.
>>>
>>> Is it unfair for me to ask you to do the same?
>>
>>I can do no more than tell you won't find a single
>>replicated trial if you look. Have you looked?
>
> As far as I am able to so far. More than you may have done?
> You offer nothing in return but an admonition for me to do
> more work while you do nothing?

I haven't done "nothing". I have been following this
particular topic for almost thirty years. There isn't even a
claim from the most credulous homeopathic supporter that
there's independently replicated studies out there. What
more can I do?
>
> LOL. It wouldn't change your mind even if there WERE
> replicated data.

Get stuffed. My mind has been changed by new evidence more
than a few times in the past few decades. Marshall's claims
about h. pylori and ulcers comes to mind. There's a
fascinating study underway that could affect SR and GR in a
significant way. (EOTVOS) That's SOP in scientific
investigation. I note that you've, basically, resorted to
diversion by casting aspersions instead of directly addressing
the point.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>Like any other discovery, they would have to eat crow if the
>>evidence was there. But it just isn't. C'mon, 200 years of
>>claims of obvious and profound effects and not one, repeat,
>>NOT ONE replicated positive trial or demonstration of an
>>ability to show thyat there's anything happening in a
>>controlled setting. The studies done are not particularly
>>expensive.
>
> First, clinical trials as a tool for evaluating ANY medicine
> is very recent. Maybe some 50 years?

Sure. But they're not needed to show that there's something
real going on. The claim has been, for 200 years, that there
is an obvious, even dramatic, effect that occurs when
homeopathic preparations are used. Yet nobody can reliably
tell when they are used vs. when they're not.

> Second, why are the studies not particularly expensive?

They're simple RCTs looking for clinically significant
effects. Those are among the cheaper studies to do.
>
>>You still don't get it. The empirical reality is just what's
>>expected. A handful of positive studies unreplicated and a
>>lot more negative ones. When testing for subtle effects,
>>it's almost certain to get some odd results.
>
> Hmmm....you don't get it. Some of the results suggest a
> positive effect and the difference is p<0.05, i.e.,
> statistically significant.

Again, that's to be expected. Replication is needed. Why isn't
it being done?
>
> I don't think the effects of homeopathic remedies are as
> startling or as strong as either you assert others assert or
> perhaps as homeopaths may assert. But if there is ANY
> effect, it draws up some questions.

Obviously, I don't assert that there's any effect. And, what
do you mean "as homeopaths may assert"? The *do* assert. If
you don't know this, you haven't bothered to research the
subject. Placebo effect adequately explains the dramatic
effects claimed. It certainly would explain marginal effects.
That's why the few positive studies need replication. But we
don't see it or hear of any real attempt.

>>> Ah....reproducible effect--may be closer to medicinal
>>> reality. I think there are some data that provide positive
>>> evidence.
>>
>>You think this because you have no experience evaluating
>>scientific claims.
>
> LOL. How do you know?

By your comments. You're impressed by a few positive studies.
There's a reason why almost the entire scientific community
isn't. They've seen this before.
>
>>It isn't. Huge manufacturers, like Boiron, do SFA research
>>into the basic claims. Do you ever wonder how they do
>>quality control on products that cannot be fifferentiated
>>from each other or from the original solute?
>
> fifferentiated??
>
> LOL...sorry. It does pose an interesting conundrum.

It is a profound problem. I mean, think about it. No way to
tell if the remedy is what it's claimed to be. No way to tell
if there's a flaw in production. Yet billions of dollars in
sales. More than odd, no?

>>> You keep repeating that but have YET to comment
>>> specifically on any of the examples I've provided.
>>
>>Yes I have. They suck from the POV of scientific evidence.
>
> "They suck" is hardly a good analysis. Did you review the
> pediatric analysis?

Yes and I commented on it.
>
>>The empirical data says that highly diluted substances are
>>indistinguishable from the original solute. This has been
>>shown in *millions* of biological and chemical experiments
>>where a "memory of water" would consistently show up.
>
> OK. You're convinced. I'm not. So what?

You're saying that it wouldn't show up? It's claimed that
massive dilution has measurable biological (and therefore
chemical) effects. Yet it's gone unnoticed in millions of
biological and chemical experiments? Are you saying that this
isn't a fact or are you saying it is but it lacks probative
value? I don't think my conclusion, and that of almost the
entire scientific community is unreasonable.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>If they were there, they would be *easy* to find! I cite the
>>same evidence for the assertion that there is no replicated
>>demonstration, in a controlled setting, of a functioning
>>perpetual motion machine. This, again, is the "basis for
>>assertion". Do you get it now?
>
> Nope. I think you're just being lazy.

As I've said before, what more can I do. I've looked at the
best that the homeopathic community has to offer. I've engaged
in long debates with experts in the field. I've participated
in an attempt at the JREF challenge by homeopathic supporters.
Lazy, not.
>
>>> I don't think so. Have you read some of the recent
>>> articles on the shape of water molecules? I've read some
>>> interesting ones in Science over the last couple of
>>> months. NOT in support of homeopathy per se but
>>> interesting physics. Sorry, I don't recall the cites.
>>
>>Yes. Some recent research has put yet another nail in the
>>claim that there is any accommodation in physics for "memory
>>of water" claims.
>>
>>http://www.randi.org/jr/032505really.html#1
>
> God, his sneering diatribe is at turns funny and tiresome,
> but not really convincing. He sounds too much like Rush
> Limbaugh.

And you factual comment on the material is? Fact is, he offers
a million dollar reward to anyone who can reliably demonstrate
the ability to differentiate between a massive dilution (>11C)
and the original solute. And, please, educate yourself on the
Challenge before casting aspersions on
it. Homeopaths have tried and failed. One of the biggest
supporters (Nobel laureate Brian Josephson) ran away.
Another major attempt was scuttled when the Claimant
turned out to be such a nutcase that even the supporters
in the homeopathic community backed away. One thing is
for certain, if you believe that the Challenge is an
honest offer, and only an idiot wouldn't, it's
problematic that so many homeopaths would claim that
there's an obvious effect there (IOW that they can tell
when someone has used a highly diluted remedy with great
reliability) yet the prize sits unclaimed. In fact, not
even a good shot at it. Just the usual whining from
promoters that they don't do science for "prizes"
(although "Nobel" comes to mind) or that the money isn't
really there.

www.randi.org/challenge

http://members.aol.com/mikecombs/confirm.htm

> I certainly agree that a lot of the "indications" he mocks
> are pretty ludicrous from today's perspective. But then, the
> pharmaceutical industry has been known to create "disorders"
> to sell drugs. (Hell, even twist the risks associated with
> disorders like the nefarious scams of Serono to sell its
> horrifically overpriced growth hormone and a manufacturer of
> a BIA device to increase sales....that's different though,
> being fraud and not merely whimsy.)

You seem to have issues with the pharmaceutical industry. Bad
experience? Whatever. Nobody's supporting them in this thread
and whatever they do doesn't impact the validity of
homeopathic claims. In fact, I doubt you'll find a skeptic
here that champions the FDA or doesn't readily agree that
there are problems with pharmaceutical manufacturers.
>
>> www.mbi-berlin.de/en/research/projects/2-04/highlights/pre-
>> ssemitteilung_water_nature_englisch.pdf

> So water has a memory. Experimentally observed but only in
> the femtosecond range under the conditions of the
> experiments so far designed. And thus applying no
> credibility for the underlying basis of homeopathy.

Correct. In fact, it does the exact opposite. It's very strong
evidence that the claims that water has a clinically or
chemically significant memory have any basis in reality.

>>> In your view, and I well understand the face-value logic
>>> of it, NO homeopathic remedy can EVER work because it
>>> doesn't make sense. I understand the argument.
>>
>>That's an unadorable misrepresentation of my position and
>>the position of the vast majority of scientists around the
>>world. So get stuffed.
>
> Back to the charming attitude! OK, then restate your
> position. I don't think it is in the slightest a
> misrepresentation.

I recognize that there are well confirmed phenomena that don't
make sense. (Particularly in cosmology.) I assert that no
homeopathic remedy (>11C) will work as claimed because there's
nothing chemically active in them.
>
>>Your response is to show that you don't understand why
>>there *should* be this sort of evidence for something that
>>doesn't work. If you look around, you'll find it for other
>>dead end claims. Look at Touch Therapy or other "energy
>>medicine" claims.
>
> Well, you can keep insisting it DOES NOT WORK til your blue
> in the face! Go right ahead. I simply do not believe you.
> Nor do I believe the homeopaths. Yet.

The best evidence says it doesn't work as claimed. If you
choose to call a few positive studies showing a minimal effect
convincing evidence you're against the best minds in the
relavent fields.

>>I have supported my argument. The kind of evidence that
>>should exist does not exist. The claims are dramatic.
>>Obvious and profound phenomena are there to be observed.
>>But they vanish under a skeptical eye. It happens all the
>>time. You don't see this fact as a real problem. I'm not
>>saying that you're a kook. But to refuse to accept this
>>reality is classic kook behaviour. I suspect that you just
>>haven't been around these sort of claims long enough to get
>>tired of the hype.
>
> Possibly. I certainly have never scrutinized homeopathy as
> closely as you. But as I do so, I remain neither accepting
> of their claims nor of your rejection.

Maybe you should look into similar supernatural claims. (Yes,
they are supernatural because they appear to defy well tested
physical laws.) I don't expect you to accept anything without
adequately educating yourself on the topic. I can tell you I
have and offer rebuttals to the claims you support. But that's
only one facet of your learning more about the subject.

moo

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 03:48:23 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
(David Wright) wrote:

>In article <lqih61l224ufrt3m4usrsm8et2oc6eisd2@4ax.com>,
>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:08:39 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>>(David Wright) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <kctd611ek7lmd80oaie3e5sjgo65acjamt@4ax.com>,
>>>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>>>Another odd one. Why would a mouthwash with a homeopathic
>>>>preparation work better than one without?
>>>
>>>The abstract doesn't give us enough information to know.
>>>For one thing, it doesn't say what dilution the remedy
>>>used. And if it was only, say, 1X, that's a big difference
>>>from 12C. Also, what's in it?
>>
>>More info on the study here:
>>http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/CP/CP05-01.pdf
>>
>>Sorry to say, I have not found the full paper on the net.
>>Might be possible to email the author.
>>
>>>Still, it was a pretty small study. Weird things happen
>>>when the study group is too small.
>>
>>Tell that to the pharmaceutical industry! lol....
>
>You don't get a product to market with a study of 27 people.

Not a drug, for sure. But dietary supplements aren't drugs and
I think homeopathic remedies, in the United States, fall under
the category of dietary supplements?

>Anyway, I looked up this homeopathic remedy, and all the
>ingredients in it appeared to be 1X, 2X, or 4X. That's little
>enough dilution that there's still plenty of the original
>substance present. Way above the Avogadro limit.
>"Homeopathic" means many things to many people.

Absolutely. As does the rather clunky term "allopathy." Thanks
for checking up on that. FDA interestingly feels that even
ultra low dose approaches may be of some utility....so the
debate here has opened up some new possibilities to me.

Thus, I have found it fruitful. Would I try homeopathy? I
might, depending on the condition being treated. In general,
this conversation has not changed my view on homeopathy. I
remain agnostic. And the data are too few to make conclusions.

For serious conditions or situations, I would not suggest a
homeopathic approach except as either adjunctive or "salvage"
(i.e., last ditch). For milder conditions, I'd say why not
give it a shot if a person has the resources and inclination.

Generally, in that regard, people must resort to the old "n of
1" approach to evaluate whether there was any specific effect
of the intervention.

Indeed, one aspect that has not arisen in the debate is
the need for "individualized" treatment, which I note
briefly below.

George M. Carter

** Szeto AL, Rollwagen F, Jonas WB. Rapid induction of
protective tolerance to potential terrorist agents: a
systematic review of low- and ultra-low dose research.
Homeopathy. 2004 Oct;93(4):173-8.

Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on the
ability of low-dose (LD) and ultra-low-dose (ULD) toxin
exposure to prevent and treat biological and chemical threats.
METHODS: Laboratory research articles on protection or
treatment from LD or ULD exposure for the 13 high-risk
chemical and biological warfare threats were collected and
systematically evaluated for quantity and scientific quality
using pre-defined methodological criteria. RESULTS: Over 2600
articles were screened. Only five studies met the inclusion
criteria examining stimulation and protective effects of LD-
or ULD-exposures to the 13 pre-identified biological and
chemical agents. The quality evaluation (QE) of these studies
was above average with a mean QE score of 70.6% of maximum.
Two articles of fair to good quality reported both protective
and treatment efficacy from exposure of animals or humans to
LD- and ULD-exposures to toxins of risk in biochemical
warfare. CONCLUSION: There is little research on agents of
biological and chemical warfare investigating the possible use
of LD- and ULD-toxins for protection and treatment. The
existing literature is generally of good quality and indicates
that rapid induction of protective tolerance is a feasible but
under-investigated approach to bioterrorist or biowarfare
defense. In our opinion, further research into the role of
induced protection with LD- and ULD-toxic agents is needed.

** Ernst is hardly a dyed-in-the-wool promoter of CAM--and he
has caveats about the findings.

Weiner DK, Ernst E. Complementary and alternative approaches
to the treatment of persistent musculoskeletal pain. Clin J
Pain. 2004 Jul-Aug;20(4):244-55.

Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine,
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
15213-3313, USA. dweiner@pitt.edu

OBJECTIVE: To review common complementary and alternative
treatment modalities for the treatment of persistent
musculoskeletal pain in older adults. METHODS: A critical
review of the literature on acupuncture and related
modalities, herbal therapies, homeopathy, and spinal
manipulation was carried out. Review included 678 cases within
21 randomized trials and 2 systematic reviews of herbal
therapies: 798 cases within 2 systematic reviews of
homeopathy; 1,059 cases within 1 systematic review of spinal
manipulation for low back pain, and 419 cases within 4
randomized controlled trials for neck pain. The review of
acupuncture and related modalities was based upon a paucity of
well-controlled studies combined with our clinical experience.
RESULTS: Insufficient experimental evidence exists to
recommend the use of traditional Chinese acupuncture over
other modalities for older adults with persistent
musculoskeletal pain. Promising preliminary evidence exists to
support the use of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
for persistent low back pain. While some herbals appear to
have modest analgesic benefits, insufficient evidence exists
to definitively recommend their use. Drug-herb interactions
must also be considered. Some evidence exists to support the
superiority of homeopathic remedies over placebo for treating
osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. The benefits of
spinal manipulation for persistent low back and neck pain have
not been convincingly shown to outweigh its risks. DISCUSSION:
While the use of complementary and alternative modalities for
the treatment of persistent musculoskeletal pain continues to
increase, rigorous clinical trials examining their efficacy
are needed before definitive recommendations regarding the
application of these modalities can be made.

** Finally, there are a couple of Cochrane Collaboration
reviews (which I'm surprised "Happy Dog" did not reference.)
One below with negative (at best, equivocal) results.

This raises an important aspect of the debate that has
hitherto been ignored: the need to individualize treatment.
This renders it difficult to homogenize single treatment (even
if a mix) to single condition as an RCT would suggest or may
have odd effects on inclusion/exclusion criteria.

But, of course, that also renders the patient/practitioner
relationship as potentially being the underlying cause of any
observed efficacy--in short, augmenting a placebo effect. If
that is the case, can we HARNESS that in some fashion?

Update of: * Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000353.
McCarney RW, Linde K, Lasserson TJ. Homeopathy for chronic
asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD000353.

Department of Psychological Medicine, Imperial College
London, Room
4.06, Paterson Centre, 20 South Wharf Road, London, UK, W2
1PD.

BACKGROUND: Homeopathy involves the use, in dilution, of
substances which cause symptoms in their undiluted form. It is
one of the most widespread forms of complementary medicines
and is also used to treat asthma. OBJECTIVES: The objective of
this review was to assess the effects of homeopathy in people
with chronic stable asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the
Cochrane Airways Group trials register, the Cochrane
Complementary Medicine Field trials register, the Glasgow
Homeopathic Hospital database, the Munchener Modell database
and reference lists of articles. Searches were current as of
August 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of
homeopathy for the treatment of stable chronic asthma, with
observation periods of at least one week were included. DATA
COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was undertaken by two
reviewers. Trial quality was assessed by the reviewers. MAIN
RESULTS: Six trials with a total of 556 people were included.
These trials were all placebo-controlled and double-blind, but
of variable quality. They used different homeopathic
treatments which precluded quantitative pooling of results for
the primary outcome. Standardised treatments in these trials
are unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice, where
treatment tends to be individualised. No trial reported a
significant difference on validated symptom scales. There were
conflicting results in terms of lung function between the
studies. There has been only a limited attempt to measure a
'package of care' effect (i.e., the effect of the medication
as well as the consultation, which is considered a vital part
of individualised homeopathic practice). 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. This will help to establish to what
extent people respond to a 'package of care' rather than the
homeopathic intervention alone.

[Gmcarter]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:09:11 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:08:39 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>> (David Wright) wrote:
>>
>>>Still, it was a pretty small study. Weird things happen
>>>when the study group is too small.
>>
>> Tell that to the pharmaceutical industry! lol....
>
>Which is what I think your real issues are about. I'll point
>out that few, if any, skeptics here give top marks to
>pharmaceutical giants or the FDA and its equivalents.

Yep, I have more genuine issues about pharma than homeopathy.
My efforts and work have focused on HIV and chronic hepatitis.
As such, I have seen great strides made and great horrors
visited upon the world by FDA, NIH and pharma. They are not
all evil nor all good. But to the extent that they can be
truly profoundly evil (e.g., blocking access to generic
antivirals to ensure profiteering), I find that a set of
issues that result in a more passionate anger than this topic.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:57:48 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> I'd say it's critical to your argument. Others have
>>>> insisted that I provide information to support my
>>>> arguments. I have endeavored to do so. I do so again,
>>>> below.
>>>>
>>>> Is it unfair for me to ask you to do the same?
>>>
>>>I can do no more than tell you won't find a single
>>>replicated trial if you look. Have you looked?
>>
>> As far as I am able to so far. More than you may have done?
>> You offer nothing in return but an admonition for me to do
>> more work while you do nothing?
>
>I haven't done "nothing". I have been following this
>particular topic for almost thirty years. There isn't even a
>claim from the most credulous homeopathic supporter that
>there's independently replicated studies out there. What more
>can I do?

Sign your real name?? LOL. How am I supposed to know how long
you've been following any particular topic?

But fascinating to hear. Thanks for sharing that.

>> LOL. It wouldn't change your mind even if there WERE
>> replicated data.
>
>Get stuffed.

Well, fuck you too, dear! lol...do you REALLY have to go
there?

>My mind has been changed by new evidence more than a few
>times in the past few decades. Marshall's claims about h.
>pylori and ulcers comes to mind. There's a fascinating study
>underway that could affect SR and GR in a significant way.
>(EOTVOS) That's SOP in scientific investigation.

This is also good to hear!

>I note that you've, basically, resorted to diversion by
>casting aspersions instead of directly addressing the point.

Excuse me? Who is the one calling people an Idiot all the
time?

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:15:14 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>Like any other discovery, they would have to eat crow if
>>>the evidence was there. But it just isn't. C'mon, 200 years
>>>of claims of obvious and profound effects and not one,
>>>repeat, NOT ONE replicated positive trial or demonstration
>>>of an ability to show thyat there's anything happening in a
>>>controlled setting. The studies done are not particularly
>>>expensive.
>>
>> First, clinical trials as a tool for evaluating ANY
>> medicine is very recent. Maybe some 50 years?
>
>Sure. But they're not needed to show that there's something
>real going on.

What alternative method(s) would you suggest?

>The claim has been, for 200 years, that there is an obvious,
>even dramatic, effect that occurs when homeopathic
>preparations are used. Yet nobody can reliably tell when they
>are used vs. when they're not.

That's based on a study? Actually, I did see one study where
only about half (expected amount) of practitioners of the few
that responded could tell when they were given a particular
nostrum. Not sure what that means.

>> Second, why are the studies not particularly expensive?
>
>They're simple RCTs looking for clinically significant
>effects. Those are among the cheaper studies to do.

Really? Wow. What is "cheap" in your worldview??

I agree, though, actually, that relatively speaking, RCTs need
NOT be so expensive--but a lot depends on if one is looking at
surrogate markers, clinical outcomes, etc. How many people are
involved, salaries, institutional costs, etc., ad nauseam.

>>>You still don't get it. The empirical reality is just
>>>what's expected. A handful of positive studies unreplicated
>>>and a lot more negative ones. When testing for subtle
>>>effects, it's almost certain to get some odd results.
>>
>> Hmmm....you don't get it. Some of the results suggest a
>> positive effect and the difference is p<0.05, i.e.,
>> statistically significant.
>
>Again, that's to be expected. Replication is needed. Why
>isn't it being done?

I don't know! But I agree replication would help. But a few
studies with a good p value versus a placebo--that means
nothing? Or just relying on the 1 in 20 guestimate?

>> I don't think the effects of homeopathic remedies are as
>> startling or as strong as either you assert others assert
>> or perhaps as homeopaths may assert. But if there is ANY
>> effect, it draws up some questions.
>
>Obviously, I don't assert that there's any effect. And, what
>do you mean "as homeopaths may assert"? The *do* assert. If
>you don't know this, you haven't bothered to research the
>subject. Placebo effect adequately explains the dramatic
>effects claimed. It certainly would explain marginal effects.
>That's why the few positive studies need replication. But we
>don't see it or hear of any real attempt.

This may be correct! Do you know of other meta-analyses
of homeopathic RCTs like the one on pediatric studies
that I found?

>>>> Ah....reproducible effect--may be closer to medicinal
>>>> reality. I think there are some data that provide
>>>> positive evidence.
>>>
>>>You think this because you have no experience evaluating
>>>scientific claims.
>>
>> LOL. How do you know?
>
>By your comments. You're impressed by a few positive studies.
>There's a reason why almost the entire scientific community
>isn't. They've seen this before.

Ah--I've seen less impressive results touted as the next great
cure when it comes from pharma! LOL....but no, I'm not so much
impressed as curious.

Again, it seems to me that the crux of your argument (which I
haven't read yet to see if you put it better in your own
words) is that it is absurd to presume ANY biological effect
after shaking/diluting in repeated rounds, therefore
homeopathy intrinsically cannot EVER work.

So any positive results therefore must be rejected as "chance"
(even where, as in the pediatric review they are
methodologically sound). I certainly agree that many of the
studies have methodological flaws.

>>>It isn't. Huge manufacturers, like Boiron, do SFA research
>>>into the basic claims. Do you ever wonder how they do
>>>quality control on products that cannot be fifferentiated
>>>from each other or from the original solute?
>>
>> fifferentiated??
>>
>> LOL...sorry. It does pose an interesting conundrum.
>
>It is a profound problem. I mean, think about it. No way to
>tell if the remedy is what it's claimed to be. No way to tell
>if there's a flaw in production. Yet billions of dollars in
>sales. More than odd, no?

Well, I think you exaggerate the sales somewhat but I agree
that there is certainly money in it. And that DOES have a
potentially biasing effect! No doubt.

>>>> You keep repeating that but have YET to comment
>>>> specifically on any of the examples I've provided.
>>>
>>>Yes I have. They suck from the POV of scientific evidence.
>>
>> "They suck" is hardly a good analysis. Did you review the
>> pediatric analysis?
>
>Yes and I commented on it.
>>
>>>The empirical data says that highly diluted substances are
>>>indistinguishable from the original solute. This has been
>>>shown in *millions* of biological and chemical experiments
>>>where a "memory of water" would consistently show up.
>>
>> OK. You're convinced. I'm not. So what?
>
>You're saying that it wouldn't show up? It's claimed that
>massive dilution has measurable biological (and therefore
>chemical) effects. Yet it's gone unnoticed in millions of
>biological and chemical experiments? Are you saying that this
>isn't a fact or are you saying it is but it lacks probative
>value? I don't think my conclusion, and that of almost the
>entire scientific community is unreasonable.

It lacks probative value to the extent that IF there is a
clinical effect, for which there is some evidence, then
SOMETHING is happening in the preparation that results in
clinical effect.

It may take some time and better technology to tease that out
than we currently have.

Lots of in vitro studies tell us lots of things that bear
little relevance to clinical situations or reality, as I'm
sure you are well aware.

That does NOT obviate the evidence--merely underscores that
those approaches also have limitations.

I hope you don't feel the need to continue insulting--I
find the discussion invigorating and fascinating. You're a
smart person.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:42:32 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>If they were there, they would be *easy* to find! I cite
>>>the same evidence for the assertion that there is no
>>>replicated demonstration, in a controlled setting, of a
>>>functioning perpetual motion machine. This, again, is the
>>>"basis for assertion". Do you get it now?
>>
>> Nope. I think you're just being lazy.
>
>As I've said before, what more can I do. I've looked at the
>best that the homeopathic community has to offer. I've
>engaged in long debates with experts in the field. I've
>participated in an attempt at the JREF challenge by
>homeopathic supporters. Lazy, not.

So you now claim and this is interesting to hear--but how
would I know that? I have not heard of a Dr. Happy Dog giving
lectures on moo or homeopathy! LOL....

>>>> I don't think so. Have you read some of the recent
>>>> articles on the shape of water molecules? I've read some
>>>> interesting ones in Science over the last couple of
>>>> months. NOT in support of homeopathy per se but
>>>> interesting physics. Sorry, I don't recall the cites.
>>>
>>>Yes. Some recent research has put yet another nail in the
>>>claim that there is any accommodation in physics for
>>>"memory of water" claims.
>>>
>>>http://www.randi.org/jr/032505really.html#1
>>
>> God, his sneering diatribe is at turns funny and tiresome,
>> but not really convincing. He sounds too much like Rush
>> Limbaugh.
>
>And you factual comment on the material is? Fact is, he
>offers a million dollar reward to anyone who can reliably
>demonstrate the ability to differentiate between a massive
>dilution (>11C) and the original solute.

Oh, darling, Continuum offered $100,000 for anyone able I
think to prove the existence of HIV. Every time evidence was
offered, they found a reason to reject. The reality is, HIV
exists and, unfortunately, causes AIDS in the majority of
infected individuals.

I'd be curious if anyone took him up on the offer in any case.

>And, please, educate yourself on the Challenge before casting
>aspersions on
>it. Homeopaths have tried and failed. One of the biggest
> supporters (Nobel laureate Brian Josephson) ran away.
> Another major attempt was scuttled when the Claimant
> turned out to be such a nutcase that even the supporters
> in the homeopathic community backed away. One thing is
> for certain, if you believe that the Challenge is an
> honest offer, and only an idiot wouldn't,

LOL....now I'm getting even more suspicious. Clearly, your
view is very biased. So I don't trust you any more than I
would a devout adherent.

So yep, idiot I am!

>it's problematic that so many homeopaths would claim that
>there's an obvious effect there (IOW that they can tell when
>someone has used a highly diluted remedy with great
>reliability) yet the prize sits unclaimed. In fact, not even
>a good shot at it. Just the usual whining from promoters that
>they don't do science for "prizes" (although "Nobel" comes to
>mind) or that the money isn't really there.
>
>www.randi.org/challenge

I get a server not found message.

>http://members.aol.com/mikecombs/confirm.htm
>
>> I certainly agree that a lot of the "indications" he mocks
>> are pretty ludicrous from today's perspective. But then,
>> the pharmaceutical industry has been known to create
>> "disorders" to sell drugs. (Hell, even twist the risks
>> associated with disorders like the nefarious scams of
>> Serono to sell its horrifically overpriced growth hormone
>> and a manufacturer of a BIA device to increase
>> sales....that's different though, being fraud and not
>> merely whimsy.)
>
>You seem to have issues with the pharmaceutical industry. Bad
>experience?

Many. Watched it kill people and cause undue suffering.

>Whatever. Nobody's supporting them in this thread and
>whatever they do doesn't impact the validity of homeopathic
>claims. In fact, I doubt you'll find a skeptic here that
>champions the FDA or doesn't readily agree that there are
>problems with pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Cool. So we have areas of agreement.

>>> www.mbi-berlin.de/en/research/projects/2-04/highlights/pr-
>>> essemitteilung_water_nature_englisch.pdf
>
>> So water has a memory. Experimentally observed but only in
>> the femtosecond range under the conditions of the
>> experiments so far designed. And thus applying no
>> credibility for the underlying basis of homeopathy.
>
>Correct. In fact, it does the exact opposite. It's very
>strong evidence that the claims that water has a clinically
>or chemically significant memory have any basis in reality.

Why?

>>>> In your view, and I well understand the face-value logic
>>>> of it, NO homeopathic remedy can EVER work because it
>>>> doesn't make sense. I understand the argument.
>>>
>>>That's an unadorable misrepresentation of my position and
>>>the position of the vast majority of scientists around the
>>>world. So get stuffed.
>>
>> Back to the charming attitude! OK, then restate your
>> position. I don't think it is in the slightest a
>> misrepresentation.
>
>I recognize that there are well confirmed phenomena that
>don't make sense. (Particularly in cosmology.) I assert that
>no homeopathic remedy (>11C) will work as claimed because
>there's nothing chemically active in them.

On the face of it, this is completely sensible and logical!

But, pardon me for not stating it well, I believe that this
is essentially what I was saying was your perspective. You
have clarified
it.

What I am saying that if this a null hypothesis, finding data
that is positive would result in a rejection of the
hypothesis.

I think there are some data that suggest this may be the
case--but yes, I agree that replication is important.

>>>Your response is to show that you don't understand why
>>>there *should* be this sort of evidence for something that
>>>doesn't work. If you look around, you'll find it for other
>>>dead end claims. Look at Touch Therapy or other "energy
>>>medicine" claims.
>>
>> Well, you can keep insisting it DOES NOT WORK til your blue
>> in the face! Go right ahead. I simply do not believe you.
>> Nor do I believe the homeopaths. Yet.
>
>The best evidence says it doesn't work as claimed. If you
>choose to call a few positive studies showing a minimal
>effect convincing evidence you're against the best minds in
>the relavent fields.

Wouldn't be the first time.

So who are you, anyway? Why don't you sign your name?

>>>I have supported my argument. The kind of evidence that
>>>should exist does not exist. The claims are dramatic.
>>>Obvious and profound phenomena are there to be observed.
>>>But they vanish under a skeptical eye. It happens all the
>>>time. You don't see this fact as a real problem. I'm not
>>>saying that you're a kook. But to refuse to accept this
>>>reality is classic kook behaviour. I suspect that you just
>>>haven't been around these sort of claims long enough to get
>>>tired of the hype.
>>
>> Possibly. I certainly have never scrutinized homeopathy as
>> closely as you. But as I do so, I remain neither accepting
>> of their claims nor of your rejection.
>
>Maybe you should look into similar supernatural claims.
>(Yes, they are supernatural because they appear to defy well
>tested physical laws.) I don't expect you to accept anything
>without adequately educating yourself on the topic. I can
>tell you I have and offer rebuttals to the claims you
>support. But that's only one facet of your learning more
>about the subject.

LOL...I support no claims, my dear. I prefer the evidence of
RCTs and other methods of evaluation. So if you want to womble
off into a discussion of flying saucers or telepathy, I won't
engage you there.

But I simply have an open mind on the issue of homeopathy. I
think there is more to a lot of treatment, to the mind and to
nature than our tools have yet been able to measure or test. I
don't need to believe or disbelieve in such, though.

I am not uncomfortable with agnosticism. By contrast, I find
the atheist to be just the other side of the coin as the
strong adherent to a faith. And as potentially rigid in the
"faith" of non-existence!

There is no proof of "god" nor is there any testable measure
to preclude the notion (let alone define it). So I need
neither accept nor reject the existence of god (whether
external as in Judaeo-Christian beliefs for example or the
name given the manifestation of these evanescent lives that
imbues all things as reflected in other traditions).

But we're here. We breathe a bit before we die. How in the
world did that happen? I'm just curious.

George M. Carterr

[Gmcarter]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:05:28 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>It wasn't supposed to. The point is the lack of research
>>>>>by the people earning millions.
>>>>
>>>> You could say that about the pharmaceutical industry. The
>>>> vast majority of prescriptions are "off-label" and
>>>> physicians are so encouraged by the industry.
>>>
>>>The pharmaceutical industry doesn't spend significantly on
>>>research?
>>
>> R&D is a small part of their overall budget.
>
>The actual dollars spent are huge though. There's no parallel
>in the homeopathic remedy industry.

Oh, that's ridiculous. The profits from Lipitor alone, for
example, I am certain exceed the entire amount of money
generated by the entire field of homeopathy.

>Think about it. They claim that water has a memory that
>lasts years. They claim that this allows them to manufactur
>products for which there are claims of obvious and
>repeatable effects due to said memory of water. Yet they
>don't lift a finger to study this. After Benveniste, whom
>they dumped when he started making testable claims, they've
>done SFA in the field.

One HUGE problem with ALL clinical research is that negative
studies are often NOT published--however, I note that this is
LESS the case with complementary and alternative approaches
to medicine.

>> It IS to say we could have a more massive investment in
>> healthcare, clinical studies, etc. But nope, gotta blow
>> up Iraq, for example, in an illegal, concocted and
>> elective war.
>
>That's not the fault of drug manufacturers. I agree that,
>like most massive corporations, they're inefficient though.

So we have some areas of agreement. That's cool.

>>>It's bad science because there is a claim of an easily
>>>observable phenomena upon which a billion dollar industry
>>>is based. But NOBODY has independently replicated a single
>>>study demonstrating the alleged effect.
>>
>> Well, I have some cites that suggest you're incorrect in
>> this. See,
>
>I've looked. They're not independently replicated. They
>show a small effect when the claims are that there are
>huge effects.

OK--so why should there even be a SMALL effect??? Maybe
they exaggerate the extent of the effect. Wouldn't be the
first time!

But this is the point. There are several studies that are
methodologically sound that show a p<0.05 effect (sometimes
much less).

>> Interesting review (since you failed to offer any
>> evidence):
>> http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/CP/CP05-01.pdf
>>
>>>It should be *so* easy. Don't you agree? Think, George. If
>>>homeopathic preparations were really powerful medicine that
>>>had easily observable effects, it would be easy to do a
>>>trial where it could be shown that people who took the real
>>>thing showed *some* significant effect over placebo. Any
>>>pharmaceutical will have some effect (if only being
>>>detectable). Think.
>>
>> I am. You're clinging fiercely to your belief system. I am
>> at equipoise on the issue...from the above pdf,
>
>Please address my statement above in detail. Show where I'm
>clinging to any belief.

Well, we're going in circles now, it seems. I have shown a
couple of studies that show some effect, the extent of which
is significant statistically.

By your own lights, this is a bit of a conundrum...sigh. This
is getting a bit Oroborus.

>> "Because of the inconclusive nature of the data thus far,
>> the belief system of the individual will most likely
>> influence the interpretation of the results -- opponents of
>> homeopathy are unlikely to be swayed by a tendency toward
>> positive trials, whereas its adherents are more likely to
>> be dismissive of negative results."
>>
>> Neither approach is good science. I think the ONE thing we
>> may agree on is that better research and data are needed.
>> They note:
>
>The "adherents" should be doing serious trials to demonstrate
>the basic claims. The "opponents" need do little but point
>out that this isn't being done. C'mon guys, just ONE
>independently replicated study show ANY effect. But, no, they
>can't or won't. (Look at the Josephson debacle.) Odd, eh?

Yep--and possibly damning. I don't know about the
Josephson debacle.

How about these?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.-
jsp?story=552905 http://www.amhmg.org/Histamin2004.pdf

Abstract. Background: In order to demonstrate that high
dilutions of histamine are able to inhibit basophil activation
in a reproducible fashion, several techniques were used in
different research laboratories. Objective: The aim of the
study was to investigate the action of histamine dilutions on
basophil activation. Methods: Basophil activation was assessed
by alcian blue staining, measurement of histamine release and
CD63 expression. Study 1 used a blinded multi-centre approach
in 4 centres. Study 2, related to the confirmation of the
multicentre study by flow cytometry, was performed
independently in 3 laboratories. Study 3 examined the
histamine release (one laboratory) and the activity of H2
receptor antagonists and structural analogues (two
laboratories). Results: High dilutions of histamine
(10–30–10–38 M) influence the activation of human basophils
measured by alcian blue staining. The degree of inhibition
depends on the initial level of anti-IgE induced stimulation,
with the greatest inhibitory effects seen at lower levels of
stimulation. This multicentre study was confirmed in the three
laboratories by using flow cytometry and in one laboratory by
histamine release. Inhibition of CD63 expression by histamine
high dilutions was reversed by cimetidine (effect observed in
two laboratories) and not by ranitidine (one laboratory).
Histidine tested in parallel with histamine showed no activity
on this model. Conclusion: In 3 different types of experiment,
it has been shown that high dilutions of histamine may indeed
exert an effect on basophil activity. This activity observed
by staining basophils with alcian blue was confirmed by flow
cytometry. Inhibition by histamine was reversed by anti-H2 and
was not observed with histidine these results being in favour
of the specificity of this effect We are however unable to
explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage
others to investigate this phenomenon.

Needs replication!

>> "There are only a few good studies (42,58,60) showing
>> possible benefits of homeopathy when prescribed by trained
>> practitioners for a selected number of specific conditions
>> in children."
>>
>> That's three studies that show something possible. Of
>> others that support it. It may be that ALL studies are all
>> flawed and therefore no homeopathic remedy works. That's
>> kinda stretching statistics a bit.
>
>Nope. Not when it comes to subtle effects. Happens all the
>time. Look at magno-therapy, Touch Therapy and prayer.

Could be. I haven't explored any of those in depth....but
golly, that sure does suggest that clinical trials can be used
to market things! What a cynical thought!

>> But according to your not unreasonable assertion regarding
>> the fundamentals of homeopathy being impossible, any one
>> positive study rejects the null hypothesis, yes?
>
>If it's repeatedly independently replicated, yes. (It would
>only take a couple of independent replications to start an
>avalance of research.) Physics, as we know it, will undergo a
>radical change.

That would be fun! Or we could save people some money so they
could pump more gas! Gotta go. Program on global warming
coming up...is that a myth?

George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

> Indeed, one aspect that has not arisen in the debate is
> the need for "individualized" treatment, which I note
> briefly below.

That's a direct path to nowhere. It's claimed that homeopathic
remedies work only if prescribed by a homeopath. (That's the
essence of the "individualized treatment" aspect.) And that's
deep into the bailiwick of religion. You need a genuine
no-shit sanctioned authority for a "real" blessing.

moo

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:00:37 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>> Indeed, one aspect that has not arisen in the debate is
>> the need for "individualized" treatment, which I note
>> briefly below.
>
>That's a direct path to nowhere. It's claimed that
>homeopathic remedies work only if prescribed by a homeopath.
>(That's the essence of the "individualized treatment"
>aspect.) And that's deep into the bailiwick of religion. You
>need a genuine no-shit sanctioned authority for a "real"
>blessing.

Others might argue that this is because individuals are
different, present with disease differently and therefore the
treatment should be tailored to the individual. That is not
religion--but it does indeed require an expert in diagnosis
and appropriate prescription.

Most system's of good medicine operate this way at the end of
the day. Clinical data merely provides a tool for guiding
treatment choices, not a blanket recommendation for a fixed
dose for everyone (though western medicine appears to be
falling into that trap).

George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> Yep, I have more genuine issues about pharma than
> homeopathy. My efforts and work have focused on HIV and
> chronic hepatitis. As such, I have seen great strides made
> and great horrors visited upon the world by FDA, NIH and
> pharma. They are not all evil nor all good. But to the
> extent that they can be truly profoundly evil (e.g.,
> blocking access to generic antivirals to ensure
> profiteering), I find that a set of issues that result in a
> more passionate anger than this topic.

Are you talking about enforcement of patent law?

moo

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:54:13 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> As far as I am able to so far. More than you may have
>>>> done? You offer nothing in return but an admonition for
>>>> me to do more work while you do nothing?
>>>
>>>I haven't done "nothing". I have been following this
>>>particular topic for almost thirty years. There isn't even
>>>a claim from the most credulous homeopathic supporter that
>>>there's independently replicated studies out there. What
>>>more can I do?
>>
>> Sign your real name?? LOL. How am I supposed to know how
>> long you've been following any particular topic?
>
>Yocan't know unless you've been informed. Which you now have.
>And what does my "real name" have to do with the validity of
>what I write. I'm hardly anonymous.

I see. So is Happy Dog or moo your real name??

>>>My mind has been changed by new evidence more than a few
>>>times in the past few decades. Marshall's claims about h.
>>>pylori and ulcers comes to mind. There's a fascinating
>>>study underway that could affect SR and GR in a significant
>>>way. (EOTVOS) That's SOP in scientific investigation.
>>
>> This is also good to hear!
>>
>>>I note that you've, basically, resorted to diversion
>>>by casting aspersions instead of directly addressing
>>>the point.
>>
>> Excuse me? Who is the one calling people an Idiot all
>> the time?
>
>I call idiots idiots. I've shown where you fail to address a
>point and respond with diversion.

I think you respond with diversion as you did above in re
your identity.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:21:51 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> First, clinical trials as a tool for evaluating ANY
>>>> medicine is very recent. Maybe some 50 years?
>>>
>>>Sure. But they're not needed to show that there's something
>>>real going on.
>>
>> What alternative method(s) would you suggest?
>
>The clsim is that obvious effects exist. So, it should be
>as simple as having an average person, by taking a
>homeopathic remedy, demonstrate that they can tell when
>they have or haven't.

I see. Give someone a tablet of tetracycline and they'll know
if they have or haven't.

Ah...huh?

>>>The claim has been, for 200 years, that there is an
>>>obvious, even dramatic, effect that occurs when homeopathic
>>>preparations are used. Yet nobody can reliably tell when
>>>they are used vs. when they're not.
>>
>> That's based on a study? Actually, I did see one study
>> where only about half (expected amount) of practitioners of
>> the few that responded could tell when they were given a
>> particular nostrum. Not sure what that means.
>
>You ask if there's a study that shows this and then tell us
>that you've seen one.

I have--but apparently either you have not or didn't bother to
share it? You never offer any citations, just your vaunted
opinion and claims of having reviewed the data, which I
neither dispute nor endorse but find questionable when you
hide your identity and offer only a magician as a resource,
albeit a colorful one.

>>>> Second, why are the studies not particularly expensive?
>>>
>>>They're simple RCTs looking for clinically significant
>>>effects. Those are among the cheaper studies to do.
>>
>> Really? Wow. What is "cheap" in your worldview??
>
>Are you seriously suggesting that the manufacturers of
>homeopathic products couldn't afford to do simple studies
>that address the questions of whether an effect actually
>exists? If you were in management at, say, Boiron, would you
>be doing your shareholders any favours by addressing this
>basic question with a study?

LOL....sure, and if the results were positive, you'd dismiss
them claiming that it was due to the malfeasance of the funder
who has a vested interest! But sure, I think it would be cool
to see Boiron do some studies. More companies should get
involved....but they are not cheap. Even the simplest ones,
depending upon where they're conducted, by whom, etc.

>>>Again, that's to be expected. Replication is needed. Why
>>>isn't it being done?
>>
>> I don't know! But I agree replication would help. But a few
>> studies with a good p value versus a placebo--that means
>> nothing? Or just relying on the 1 in 20 guestimate?
>
>Replication would "help"? Replications would change the
>course of scientific history.

I don't think it's that dramatic, frankly.

>>>Obviously, I don't assert that there's any effect. And,
>>>what do you mean "as homeopaths may assert"? The *do*
>>>assert. If you don't know this, you haven't bothered to
>>>research the subject. Placebo effect adequately explains
>>>the dramatic effects claimed. It certainly would explain
>>>marginal effects. That's why the few positive studies need
>>>replication. But we don't see it or hear of any real
>>>attempt.
>>
>> This may be correct! Do you know of other meta-analyses
>> of homeopathic RCTs like the one on pediatric studies
>> that I found?
>
>Sure. Lancet 1997. Some find a marginal effect. Some don't.
>Meta-analysis is a grasp at straws though. The claim is
>obvious effects.

OK. You've repeated that enough!

>>>By your comments. You're impressed by a few positive
>>>studies. There's a reason why almost the entire scientific
>>>community isn't. They've seen this before.
>>
>> Ah--I've seen less impressive results touted as the next
>> great cure when it comes from pharma! LOL....but no, I'm
>> not so much impressed as curious.
>
>We're not talking about pharmacological remedies. But you
>keep bring them up as if you're debating with advocates
>of the FDA.

No. I'm just saying that many of the same requests/demands
etc. are the kind undertaken by the mainstream--with often
questionable results. I'm saying that I think NO degree of
evidence would ever satisfy you. Your mind is made up. Even a
replicated study you would dispute.

>> Again, it seems to me that the crux of your argument (which
>> I haven't read yet to see if you put it better in your own
>> words) is that it is absurd to presume ANY biological
>> effect after shaking/diluting in repeated rounds, therefore
>> homeopathy intrinsically cannot EVER work.
>
>There's no theory. There's claims of obvious effects yet
>precious little evidence of them.

No, you're wrong. There IS a theory. A basis upon which this
treatment modality is based. You find that basis incredible.
Not unreasonably.

I'm merely saying that, while I agree there is little
evidence, there is SOME. That is not proof. But should there
be evidence that ANY remedy works (of a sufficiently diluted
intervention that falls below Avogadro's limit), then it
raises interesting questions.

This is beginning to be repetitive!

>> So any positive results therefore must be rejected as
>> "chance" (even where, as in the pediatric review they are
>> methodologically sound). I certainly agree that many of the
>> studies have methodological flaws.
>
>By chance, there should be the occasional positive result.
>The claim is that the effects are dramatic and obvious. The
>reality is that the evidence for such claims should be easy
>to produce. Yet it barely exists. Which is exactly what
>should be expected if the claims are false.

Barely exists is not the same as does not exist. That is also
your characterization.

>>>It is a profound problem. I mean, think about it. No way to
>>>tell if the remedy is what it's claimed to be. No way to
>>>tell if there's a flaw in production. Yet billions of
>>>dollars in sales. More than odd, no?
>>
>> Well, I think you exaggerate the sales somewhat but I agree
>> that there is certainly money in it. And that DOES have a
>> potentially biasing effect! No doubt.
>
>The numbers are correct.
>
> www.homeopathic.org

Perhaps you'd be more specific? You noted this site before but
there is nothing I've seen (and I did a search) about sales of
homeopathic remedies.

Anyway, you've given no numbers, just a vague reference to
billions and a reference to sales in France (uncited)...and I
have indicated that this is of no relevance to the utility of
the intervention. Lots of stuff is sold that doesn't do squat
(or may be harmful) in the arena of healthcare. Lots of useful
stuff is sold. So what?

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:44:19 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>
>>>As I've said before, what more can I do. I've looked at the
>>>best that the homeopathic community has to offer. I've
>>>engaged in long debates with experts in the field. I've
>>>participated in an attempt at the JREF challenge by
>>>homeopathic supporters. Lazy, not.
>>
>> So you now claim and this is interesting to hear--but how
>> would I know that? I have not heard of a Dr. Happy Dog
>> giving lectures on moo or homeopathy! LOL....
>
>And you haven't looked. Google is your friend. Maybe a guy
>named "Benneth" too.

Nope. Don't know him. Are you Peter Bowditch?

>>>And you factual comment on the material is? Fact is, he
>>>offers a million dollar reward to anyone who can reliably
>>>demonstrate the ability to differentiate between a massive
>>>dilution (>11C) and the original solute.
>>
>> Oh, darling, Continuum offered $100,000 for anyone able I
>> think to prove the existence of HIV. Every time evidence
>> was offered, they found a reason to reject.
>
>Bullshit. The analogy is pathetic. Even for you. No such
>record exists for the JREF Challenge.

Benneth?

>> I'd be curious if anyone took him up on the offer in
>> any case.
>
>But not curious enough to investigate it. Idiot.

LOL...you're SUCH an asshole.

Given that, I see that it's pointless. You have failed to
convince me of anything any more than the homeopaths have.

So--I remain agnostic. Best of luck!

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:55:53 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>The actual dollars spent are huge though. There's no
>>>parallel in the homeopathic remedy industry.
>>
>> Oh, that's ridiculous. The profits from Lipitor alone, for
>> example, I am certain exceed the entire amount of money
>> generated by the entire field of homeopathy.
>
>We were talking about the dollar amount spent on research. In
>homeopathy, it's zilch. If it were otherwise, the literature
>would be replete with current papers. It isn't. OK?

There are nearly 3000 entries in PubMed entering
homeopathy. A brief review, as I've done over the past few
days of our discussion has yielded some evidence for
efficacy--and yep, a number of studies failing to find
benefit. Bet ya never looked.

But some of these appear to have been done by institutes or
companies associated with homeopathy. And I wouldn't be
surprised if some were funded by companies like Boiron. Don't
know, don't care, really.

>>>Think about it. They claim that water has a memory that
>>>lasts years. They claim that this allows them to manufactur
>>>products for which there are claims of obvious and
>>>repeatable effects due to said memory of water. Yet they
>>>don't lift a finger to study this. After Benveniste, whom
>>>they dumped when he started making testable claims, they've
>>>done SFA in the field.
>>
>> One HUGE problem with ALL clinical research is that
>> negative studies are often NOT published--however, I note
>> that this is LESS the case with complementary and
>> alternative approaches to medicine.
>
>Evidence please.

Google is your friend, dear. Look it up.

>>>> Well, I have some cites that suggest you're incorrect in
>>>> this. See,
>>>
>>>I've looked. They're not independently replicated. They
>>>show a small effect when the claims are that there are huge
>>>effects.
>>
>> OK--so why should there even be a SMALL effect??? Maybe
>> they exaggerate the extent of the effect. Wouldn't be the
>> first time!
>
>There *should* be evidence of a very small effect because
>that's exactly what happens in cases where no effect exists.
>Do you need more explanation of this fact?

No, I don't need to see your repetitions of statements with
never ONCE a reference to anything but a magician.

"Josephson" and "American Physical Society"
>>
>> How about these?
>>
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/sto-
>> ry.jsp?story=552905 http://www.amhmg.org/Histamin2004.pdf
>
>How about "so what"? Marginal effects. And. as you note,
>needs replication. Badly.

You're the one who needs it badly. I'll bet you a nickel you
didn't even LOOK at this site. I'll bet you wouldn't know HOW
to cogently criticize the article.

Wow. You are SO bent out of shape over this. What is the
emotional problem you have--this urgent need to convince me of
homeopathy's lack of worth?

I'm as curious about your psychological profile as the
subject at hand!

LOL...if you try to tell me global warming is not
happening...well, dear...i can only hope you'll purchase a
clue.

Little wonder your favorite word is idiot! For I think
she doth...

George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> As far as I am able to so far. More than you may have
>>> done? You offer nothing in return but an admonition for me
>>> to do more work while you do nothing?
>>
>>I haven't done "nothing". I have been following this
>>particular topic for almost thirty years. There isn't even a
>>claim from the most credulous homeopathic supporter that
>>there's independently replicated studies out there. What
>>more can I do?
>
> Sign your real name?? LOL. How am I supposed to know how
> long you've been following any particular topic?

Yocan't know unless you've been informed. Which you now have.
And what does my "real name" have to do with the validity of
what I write. I'm hardly anonymous.
>
>>My mind has been changed by new evidence more than a few
>>times in the past few decades. Marshall's claims about h.
>>pylori and ulcers comes to mind. There's a fascinating study
>>underway that could affect SR and GR in a significant way.
>>(EOTVOS) That's SOP in scientific investigation.
>
> This is also good to hear!
>
>>I note that you've, basically, resorted to diversion by
>>casting aspersions instead of directly addressing the point.
>
> Excuse me? Who is the one calling people an Idiot all
> the time?

I call idiots idiots. I've shown where you fail to address a
point and respond with diversion.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> First, clinical trials as a tool for evaluating ANY
>>> medicine is very recent. Maybe some 50 years?
>>
>>Sure. But they're not needed to show that there's something
>>real going on.
>
> What alternative method(s) would you suggest?

The clsim is that obvious effects exist. So, it should be
as simple as having an average person, by taking a
homeopathic remedy, demonstrate that they can tell when
they have or haven't.
>
>>The claim has been, for 200 years, that there is an obvious,
>>even dramatic, effect that occurs when homeopathic
>>preparations are used. Yet nobody can reliably tell when
>>they are used vs. when they're not.
>
> That's based on a study? Actually, I did see one study where
> only about half (expected amount) of practitioners of the
> few that responded could tell when they were given a
> particular nostrum. Not sure what that means.

You ask if there's a study that shows this and then tell us
that you've seen one.
>
>>> Second, why are the studies not particularly expensive?
>>
>>They're simple RCTs looking for clinically significant
>>effects. Those are among the cheaper studies to do.
>
> Really? Wow. What is "cheap" in your worldview??

Are you seriously suggesting that the manufacturers of
homeopathic products couldn't afford to do simple studies that
address the questions of whether an effect actually exists? If
you were in management at, say, Boiron, would you be doing
your shareholders any favours by addressing this basic
question with a study?
>
>>Again, that's to be expected. Replication is needed. Why
>>isn't it being done?
>
> I don't know! But I agree replication would help. But a few
> studies with a good p value versus a placebo--that means
> nothing? Or just relying on the 1 in 20 guestimate?

Replication would "help"? Replications would change the course
of scientific history.
>
>>Obviously, I don't assert that there's any effect. And, what
>>do you mean "as homeopaths may assert"? The *do* assert. If
>>you don't know this, you haven't bothered to research the
>>subject. Placebo effect adequately explains the dramatic
>>effects claimed. It certainly would explain marginal
>>effects. That's why the few positive studies need
>>replication. But we don't see it or hear of any real
>>attempt.
>
> This may be correct! Do you know of other meta-analyses
> of homeopathic RCTs like the one on pediatric studies
> that I found?

Sure. Lancet 1997. Some find a marginal effect. Some don't.
Meta-analysis is a grasp at straws though. The claim is
obvious effects.
>
>>By your comments. You're impressed by a few positive
>>studies. There's a reason why almost the entire scientific
>>community isn't. They've seen this before.
>
> Ah--I've seen less impressive results touted as the next
> great cure when it comes from pharma! LOL....but no, I'm not
> so much impressed as curious.

We're not talking about pharmacological remedies. But you keep
bring them up as if you're debating with advocates of the FDA.
>
> Again, it seems to me that the crux of your argument (which
> I haven't read yet to see if you put it better in your own
> words) is that it is absurd to presume ANY biological effect
> after shaking/diluting in repeated rounds, therefore
> homeopathy intrinsically cannot EVER work.

There's no theory. There's claims of obvious effects yet
precious little evidence of them.

> So any positive results therefore must be rejected as
> "chance" (even where, as in the pediatric review they are
> methodologically sound). I certainly agree that many of the
> studies have methodological flaws.

By chance, there should be the occasional positive result. The
claim is that the effects are dramatic and obvious. The
reality is that the evidence for such claims should be easy to
produce. Yet it barely exists. Which is exactly what should be
expected if the claims are false.
>
>>It is a profound problem. I mean, think about it. No way to
>>tell if the remedy is what it's claimed to be. No way to
>>tell if there's a flaw in production. Yet billions of
>>dollars in sales. More than odd, no?
>
> Well, I think you exaggerate the sales somewhat but I agree
> that there is certainly money in it. And that DOES have a
> potentially biasing effect! No doubt.

The numbers are correct.

www.homeopathic.org

>>You're saying that it wouldn't show up? It's claimed that
>>massive dilution has measurable biological (and therefore
>>chemical) effects. Yet it's gone unnoticed in millions of
>>biological and chemical experiments? Are you saying that
>>this isn't a fact or are you saying it is but it lacks
>>probative value? I don't think my conclusion, and that of
>>almost the entire scientific community is unreasonable.
>
> It lacks probative value to the extent that IF there is a
> clinical effect, for which there is some evidence, then
> SOMETHING is happening in the preparation that results in
> clinical effect. It may take some time and better technology
> to tease that out than we currently have.

The claim is that the effects are obvious. They don't need to
be "teased out". If the claims are wholly bogus, then "tesing"
is the only hope.

> Lots of in vitro studies tell us lots of things that bear
> little relevance to clinical situations or reality, as I'm
> sure you are well aware.

False analogy. We're talking about an investigation of the
supernatural.

> That does NOT obviate the evidence--merely underscores that
> those approaches also have limitations.

Obvious effects is the claim. Yet nobody can produce them
on demand.
>
> I hope you don't feel the need to continue insulting--I
> find the discussion invigorating and fascinating. You're a
> smart person.

Well, it's Usenet. Insults are de rigeur.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in

>>As I've said before, what more can I do. I've looked at the
>>best that the homeopathic community has to offer. I've
>>engaged in long debates with experts in the field. I've
>>participated in an attempt at the JREF challenge by
>>homeopathic supporters. Lazy, not.
>
> So you now claim and this is interesting to hear--but how
> would I know that? I have not heard of a Dr. Happy Dog
> giving lectures on moo or homeopathy! LOL....

And you haven't looked. Google is your friend. Maybe a guy
named "Benneth" too.

>>And you factual comment on the material is? Fact is, he
>>offers a million dollar reward to anyone who can reliably
>>demonstrate the ability to differentiate between a massive
>>dilution (>11C) and the original solute.
>
> Oh, darling, Continuum offered $100,000 for anyone able I
> think to prove the existence of HIV. Every time evidence was
> offered, they found a reason to reject.

Bullshit. The analogy is pathetic. Even for you. No such
record exists for the JREF Challenge.

> I'd be curious if anyone took him up on the offer in
> any case.

But not curious enough to investigate it. Idiot.
>
>>And, please, educate yourself on the Challenge before
>>casting aspersions on
>>it. Homeopaths have tried and failed. One of the biggest
>> supporters (Nobel laureate Brian Josephson) ran away.
>> Another major attempt was scuttled when the Claimant
>> turned out to be such a nutcase that even the
>> supporters in the homeopathic community backed away.
>> One thing is for certain, if you believe that the
>> Challenge is an honest offer, and only an idiot
>> wouldn't,
>
> LOL....now I'm getting even more suspicious. Clearly, your
> view is very biased. So I don't trust you any more than I
> would a devout adherent.
>
> So yep, idiot I am!

Thanks for that. Without investigation, simple investigation,
you make a conclusion. You're now well into kook territory.
>
>>it's problematic that so many homeopaths would claim that
>>there's an obvious effect there (IOW that they can tell when
>>someone has used a highly diluted remedy with great
>>reliability) yet the prize sits unclaimed. In fact, not even
>>a good shot at it. Just the usual whining from promoters
>>that they don't do science for "prizes" (although "Nobel"
>>comes to mind) or that the money isn't really there.
>>
>>www.randi.org/challenge
>
> I get a server not found message.

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
>
>>http://members.aol.com/mikecombs/confirm.htm

And here?

>>You seem to have issues with the pharmaceutical industry.
>>Bad experience?
>
> Many. Watched it kill people and cause undue suffering.

See it save anyone? Of course you have.

>>> So water has a memory. Experimentally observed but only in
>>> the femtosecond range under the conditions of the
>>> experiments so far designed. And thus applying no
>>> credibility for the underlying basis of homeopathy.
>>
>>Correct. In fact, it does the exact opposite. It's very
>>strong evidence that the claims that water has a clinically
>>or chemically significant memory have any basis in reality.
>
> Why?

The same way as the massive preponderance of positive results
in tests of the laws of Thermodynamics (2nd in particular)
are strong evidence that claims for perptual motion machines
are false.

> What I am saying that if this a null hypothesis, finding
> data that is positive would result in a rejection of the
> hypothesis.
>
> I think there are some data that suggest this may be the
> case--but yes, I agree that replication is important.

At this point, it's *everything*.
>
>>The best evidence says it doesn't work as claimed. If you
>>choose to call a few positive studies showing a minimal
>>effect convincing evidence you're against the best minds in
>>the relavent fields.
>
> Wouldn't be the first time.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not
imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They
laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed
at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the
Clown." - Sagan

> So who are you, anyway? Why don't you sign your name?

What for? It's been revealed on Usenet a number of times by
idiots who are quite proud of their sleuthing abilities. I'm
not anonymous. I just like posting under a pseudonym that I've
used for years.

>>Maybe you should look into similar supernatural claims.
>>(Yes, they are supernatural because they appear to defy well
>>tested physical laws.) I don't expect you to accept anything
>>without adequately educating yourself on the topic. I can
>>tell you I have and offer rebuttals to the claims you
>>support. But that's only one facet of your learning more
>>about the subject.
>
> LOL...I support no claims, my dear. I prefer the evidence of
> RCTs and other methods of evaluation. So if you want to
> womble off into a discussion of flying saucers or telepathy,
> I won't engage you there.

Try common sense too then. RCTs are hardly the only avenue of
scientific investigation. But, it's true, that a lack of
positive ones, where they should exist, is damning evidence
against a claim.
>
> I am not uncomfortable with agnosticism. By contrast, I find
> the atheist to be just the other side of the coin as the
> strong adherent to a faith. And as potentially rigid in the
> "faith" of non-existence!
>
> There is no proof of "god" nor is there any testable measure
> to preclude the notion (let alone define it). So I need
> neither accept nor reject the existence of god (whether
> external as in Judaeo-Christian beliefs for example or the
> name given the manifestation of these evanescent lives that
> imbues all things as reflected in other traditions)

Adorable. If there were no claims for the observable effects
of the power of various gods, the world would be a very
different place. But, you must admit, there are such claims.
And they're defended by logic similar to that which you've
used to defend your "open minded" stance on homeopathy.
>
> But we're here. We breathe a bit before we die. How in the
> world did that happen? I'm just curious.

Gee. You must be the first one.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>The actual dollars spent are huge though. There's no
>>parallel in the homeopathic remedy industry.
>
> Oh, that's ridiculous. The profits from Lipitor alone, for
> example, I am certain exceed the entire amount of money
> generated by the entire field of homeopathy.

We were talking about the dollar amount spent on research. In
homeopathy, it's zilch. If it were otherwise, the literature
would be replete with current papers. It isn't. OK?
>
>>Think about it. They claim that water has a memory that
>>lasts years. They claim that this allows them to manufactur
>>products for which there are claims of obvious and
>>repeatable effects due to said memory of water. Yet they
>>don't lift a finger to study this. After Benveniste, whom
>>they dumped when he started making testable claims, they've
>>done SFA in the field.
>
> One HUGE problem with ALL clinical research is that negative
> studies are often NOT published--however, I note that this
> is LESS the case with complementary and alternative
> approaches to medicine.

Evidence please.
>
>>> Well, I have some cites that suggest you're incorrect in
>>> this. See,
>>
>>I've looked. They're not independently replicated. They show
>>a small effect when the claims are that there are huge
>>effects.
>
> OK--so why should there even be a SMALL effect??? Maybe
> they exaggerate the extent of the effect. Wouldn't be the
> first time!

There *should* be evidence of a very small effect because
that's exactly what happens in cases where no effect exists.
Do you need more explanation of this fact?
>>>>>It should be
>>>>*so* easy. Don't you agree? Think, George. If homeopathic
>>>>preparations were really powerful medicine that had easily
>>>>observable effects, it would be easy to do a trial where
>>>>it could be shown that people who took the real thing
>>>>showed *some* significant effect over placebo. Any
>>>>pharmaceutical will have some effect (if only being
>>>>detectable). Think.
>>>
>>> I am. You're clinging fiercely to your belief system. I am
>>> at equipoise on the issue...from the above pdf,
>>
>>Please address my statement above in detail. Show where I'm
>>clinging to any belief.
>
> Well, we're going in circles now, it seems. I have shown a
> couple of studies that show some effect, the extent of which
> is significant statistically.
>
> By your own lights, this is a bit of a conundrum...sigh.
> This is getting a bit Oroborus.

It isn't a conundrum. It's to be expected. Again, do you need
further explanation of this fact?
>
>>The "adherents" should be doing serious trials to
>>demonstrate the basic claims. The "opponents" need do
>>little but point out that this isn't being done. C'mon
>>guys, just ONE independently replicated study show ANY
>>effect. But, no, they can't or won't. (Look at the
>>Josephson debacle.) Odd, eh?
>
> Yep--and possibly damning. I don't know about the Josephson
> debacle.

Google "Josephson" and "American Physical Society"
>
> How about these?
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/stor-
> y.jsp?story=552905 http://www.amhmg.org/Histamin2004.pdf

How about "so what"? Marginal effects. And. as you note, needs
replication. Badly.

>>> That's three studies that show something possible. Of
>>> others that support it. It may be that ALL studies are all
>>> flawed and therefore no homeopathic remedy works. That's
>>> kinda stretching statistics a bit.
>>
>>Nope. Not when it comes to subtle effects. Happens all the
>>time. Look at magno-therapy, Touch Therapy and prayer.
>
> Could be. I haven't explored any of those in depth...

Have you looked at all? The parallels with homeopathy are
real.

.but golly, that
> sure does suggest that clinical trials can be used to market
> things! What a cynical thought!

Hype is hype. Nothing and nobody are immune.

>>If it's repeatedly independently replicated, yes. (It would
>>only take a couple of independent replications to start an
>>avalance of research.) Physics, as we know it, will undergo
>>a radical change.
>
> That would be fun! Or we could save people some money so
> they could pump more gas! Gotta go. Program on global
> warming coming up...is that a myth?

It's almost a religion. Both a temperature increase and
decrease are equally cited as evidence.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> Indeed, one aspect that has not arisen in the debate is
>>> the need for "individualized" treatment, which I note
>>> briefly below.
>>
>>That's a direct path to nowhere. It's claimed that
>>homeopathic remedies work only if prescribed by a homeopath.
>>(That's the essence of the "individualized treatment"
>>aspect.) And that's deep into the bailiwick of religion. You
>>need a genuine no-shit sanctioned authority for a "real"
>>blessing.
>
> Others might argue that this is because individuals are
> different, present with disease differently and therefore
> the treatment should be tailored to the individual. That is
> not religion--but it does indeed require an expert in
> diagnosis and appropriate prescription.
>
> Most system's of good medicine operate this way at the end
> of the day. Clinical data merely provides a tool for guiding
> treatment choices, not a blanket recommendation for a fixed
> dose for everyone (though western medicine appears to be
> falling into that trap).

I agree with all this. My objection is to the claim that the
failure of controlled testing to verify the powerful effects
claimed is due to lack of involvement by the correct
authority. It's claimed by some homeopaths that the nature of
the prescription process makes it impossible to evaluate the
claims in a controlled setting. A perfect dodge.

moo

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:08:09 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Indeed, one aspect that has not arisen in the debate is
>>>> the need for "individualized" treatment, which I note
>>>> briefly below.
>>>
>>>That's a direct path to nowhere. It's claimed that
>>>homeopathic remedies work only if prescribed by a
>>>homeopath. (That's the essence of the "individualized
>>>treatment" aspect.) And that's deep into the bailiwick of
>>>religion. You need a genuine no-shit sanctioned authority
>>>for a "real" blessing.
>>
>> Others might argue that this is because individuals are
>> different, present with disease differently and therefore
>> the treatment should be tailored to the individual. That is
>> not religion--but it does indeed require an expert in
>> diagnosis and appropriate prescription.
>>
>> Most system's of good medicine operate this way at the end
>> of the day. Clinical data merely provides a tool for
>> guiding treatment choices, not a blanket recommendation for
>> a fixed dose for everyone (though western medicine appears
>> to be falling into that trap).
>
>I agree with all this. My objection is to the claim that the
>failure of controlled testing to verify the powerful effects
>claimed is due to lack of involvement by the correct
>authority. It's claimed by some homeopaths that the nature of
>the prescription process makes it impossible to evaluate the
>claims in a controlled setting. A perfect dodge.

It could be a perfect dodge or an accurate and reasonable
position--there ARE ways to test clinical outcomes or possibly
using a study design based on practitioner outcomes. There are
methodologies that could be used to evaluate these more
complicated approaches--but they also require significant
funding and a large number of participants.

I think if Randi was genuinely interested in evaluating
homeopathy, he would use that putative $1 million to fund an
independent study.

Clearly, though, he has --as you-- a long term and aching need
to justify its invalidity.

I'm always amazed at the paths people follow and the odd
byways of the mind down which some paths may lead!

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:13:15 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>>>Yocan't know unless you've been informed. Which you now
>>>have. And what does my "real name" have to do with the
>>>validity of what I write. I'm hardly anonymous.
>>
>> I see. So is Happy Dog or moo your real name??
>
>Actually, Happy Dog is a real name. So is Le Moo (the third).
>I have both on some of my credit cards. My blood is made of
>laughter.

how poetic.

>>>>>I note that you've, basically, resorted to diversion by
>>>>>casting aspersions instead of directly addressing the
>>>>>point.
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me? Who is the one calling people an Idiot all the
>>>> time?
>>>
>>>I call idiots idiots. I've shown where you fail to address
>>>a point and respond with diversion.
>>
>> I think you respond with diversion as you did above in re
>> your identity.
>
>Nobody's immune. But I asked a legitimate question. How does
>revealing my birth name alter the validity of what I write? I
>don't post from an anonymous account. And my name and address
>have been revealed on Usenet a few times by losers who think
>they're being particularly clever. What is your need to know?
>What would this knowledge serve. I'm curious. If you email
>me, I'll respond with the relevant details. I lead a fairly
>public life. I'm not hiding anything.

I just find it oddly cowardly not to just sign your name.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:28:49 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>The clsim is that obvious effects exist. So, it should be
>>>as simple as having an average person, by taking a
>>>homeopathic remedy, demonstrate that they can tell when
>>>they have or haven't.
>>
>> I see. Give someone a tablet of tetracycline and they'll
>> know if they have or haven't.
>
>*Someone* will "know" this. Easily. I really doubt that you
>believe otherwise. Now you're engaging in semantics.

Nope. You made an odd claim that giving an "average" person a
homeopathic remedy, they'll know. So the same holds true for
clearly powerful allopathic medicines, yes?

The answer: No.

So it's a silly experimental design--and I accuse YOU of
engaging in semantics.

>I have said what it would take to convince me. The ability to
>differentiate between massively diluted remedies and the
>original dilute. If I saw that, I'd by quite excited,
>actually.

Depends on how one defines that ability. As I have mentioned,
some of the clinical studies show an effect that is p<.05 on
an outcome. Which is to say, it is NOT likely a random chance
happening.

By contrast, we may simply not have the tools available to us
to adequately determine the changes ostensibly exerted by
preparing arsenic or black widow spider venom or whatever in
the homeopathic way. Or if we do, it's probably WAY more
sophisticated that to get some lab to do the analysis would be
costly, to put it mildly. Not my bailiwick--I wouldn't know.

I suspect you don't either.

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/7/6/537#REF-
-FOC7071-7

Thanks. Interesting article. Doesn't support your contention
of "billions" - it states:

" In 1997, worldwide sales of homeopathic products were
estimated to be $1.15 billion.7"

>There's a reference there. Took me one minute to find.

See? That wasn't so hard. Sharing.

>> Anyway, you've given no numbers, just a vague reference to
>> billions and a reference to sales in France (uncited)...and
>> I have indicated that this is of no relevance to the
>> utility of the intervention. Lots of stuff is sold that
>> doesn't do squat (or may be harmful) in the arena of
>> healthcare. Lots of useful stuff is sold. So what?
>
>
>Wasting time and public funds on something that does nothing
>is, obviously, harmful.

Good lord, that's a marvelous point. My whole issue with how
you are so bent out of shape on this is further amplified by
this comment. Do you think ENORMOUS amounts of time and public
funds (and certainly, I think NO US public funds are expended
on homeopathy) aren't wasted on a whole range of
worthless--indeed, horrifically HARMFUL--activities aren't
shot down the toilet every single day?

How many unnecessary diagnostics, drugs, procedures are
undertaken at HUGE profit that makes the entire global
homeopathic industry virtually irrelevant?

In short, I'm suggesting you could use that keen mind and
nasty attitude to far better effect than you do--but, of
course, that's your life, your choice! \ George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 18:33:45 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>>>> So you now claim and this is interesting to hear--but how
>>>> would I know that? I have not heard of a Dr. Happy Dog
>>>> giving lectures on moo or homeopathy! LOL....
>>>
>>>And you haven't looked. Google is your friend. Maybe a guy
>>>named "Benneth" too.
>>
>> Nope. Don't know him. Are you Peter Bowditch?
>
>No.. Nor is he me.

Another usenet denizen then!

>>>> Oh, darling, Continuum offered $100,000 for anyone able I
>>>> think to prove the existence of HIV. Every time evidence
>>>> was offered, they found a reason to reject.
>>>
>>>Bullshit. The analogy is pathetic. Even for you. No such
>>>record exists for the JREF Challenge.
>>
>> Benneth?
>
>Benneth claimed he could demonstrate the ability to
>distingush between massively diluted homeopathic remedies and
>the original dilute. If you like, I'll send you a summary of
>the Benneth affair, written by a homeopathy supporter and all
>around fair guy named Syd Baumel. It details the sort of
>problems there are getting a homeopathy promoter to make good
>on their claims.

OK...I found one: http://www.psicounsel.com/randiuse.html

Oh my god. You people are ALL really strange. Usenet indeed.

>>>> I'd be curious if anyone took him up on the offer in any
>>>> case.
>>>
>>>But not curious enough to investigate it. Idiot.
>>
>> LOL...you're SUCH an asshole.
>
>Usenet darling. Don't take it personally. At all. My point
>was that the JREF Challenge can so easily be investigated. It
>would take you about a minute to find records of Challenge
>attempts on their site and satisfy your curiosity.

I'm familiar with the interesting case study of the abnormal
psychology of usenet denizens! You low life miserable, lying,
piece of living breathing shit. Howzzat?

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:04:42 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>>>We were talking about the dollar amount spent on
>>>research. In homeopathy, it's zilch. If it were
>>>otherwise, the literature would be replete with current
>>>papers. It isn't. OK?
>>
>> There are nearly 3000 entries in PubMed entering
>> homeopathy. A brief review, as I've done over the past few
>> days of our discussion has yielded some evidence for
>> efficacy--and yep, a number of studies failing to find
>> benefit. Bet ya never looked.
>
>I have. Bugger all current research.

Right. That's the crux of the issue. While you claim you'd
love to see the evidence, you ignore what is extant.

>>>> One HUGE problem with ALL clinical research is that
>>>> negative studies are often NOT published--however, I note
>>>> that this is LESS the case with complementary and
>>>> alternative approaches to medicine.
>>>
>>>Evidence please.
>>
>> Google is your friend, dear. Look it up.
>
>Tell me what to look under. I have looked and can't find any
>evidence that this is or isn't true. Where did you get this
>information from?

My work in the AIDS activist community. Science magazine
articles. Even the NIH. Try PLOS.

George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> Most system's of good medicine operate this way at the end
>>> of the day. Clinical data merely provides a tool for
>>> guiding treatment choices, not a blanket recommendation
>>> for a fixed dose for everyone (though western medicine
>>> appears to be falling into that trap).
>>
>>I agree with all this. My objection is to the claim that the
>>failure of controlled testing to verify the powerful effects
>>claimed is due to lack of involvement by the correct
>>authority. It's claimed by some homeopaths that the nature
>>of the prescription process makes it impossible to evaluate
>>the claims in a controlled setting. A perfect dodge.
>
> It could be a perfect dodge or an accurate and reasonable
> position--there ARE ways to test clinical outcomes or
> possibly using a study design based on practitioner
> outcomes. There are methodologies that could be used to
> evaluate these more complicated approaches--but they also
> require significant funding and a large number of
> participants.

Fantastic claims and little evidence. What are the ways to
definitively test "clinical outcomes"? Why aren't the tests
being done?

>
> I think if Randi was genuinely interested in evaluating
> homeopathy, he would use that putative $1 million to fund an
> independent study.

He isn't genuinely interested in evaluating myriad
supoernatural claims. READ THE GODDAMN RULES! Sorry for
shouting but your objection is as old as Madonna. The JREF,
and a bunch of other skeptic organizations, offer real money
for proof of supernatural claims. Homeopaths have a bunch.
They make testable claims. Money is there for there taking.

> Clearly, though, he has --as you-- a long term and aching
> need to justify its invalidity.

Nope, we're dreamers. We hope for the magic to be revealed
before we die.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>> So you now claim and this is interesting to hear--but how
>>> would I know that? I have not heard of a Dr. Happy Dog
>>> giving lectures on moo or homeopathy! LOL....
>>
>>And you haven't looked. Google is your friend. Maybe a guy
>>named "Benneth" too.
>
> Nope. Don't know him. Are you Peter Bowditch?

No.. Nor is he me.

>>> Oh, darling, Continuum offered $100,000 for anyone able I
>>> think to prove the existence of HIV. Every time evidence
>>> was offered, they found a reason to reject.
>>
>>Bullshit. The analogy is pathetic. Even for you. No such
>>record exists for the JREF Challenge.
>
> Benneth?

Benneth claimed he could demonstrate the ability to distingush
between massively diluted homeopathic remedies and the
original dilute. If you like, I'll send you a summary of the
Benneth affair, written by a homeopathy supporter and all
around fair guy named Syd Baumel. It details the sort of
problems there are getting a homeopathy promoter to make good
on their claims.
>
>>> I'd be curious if anyone took him up on the offer in
>>> any case.
>>
>>But not curious enough to investigate it. Idiot.
>
> LOL...you're SUCH an asshole.

Usenet darling. Don't take it personally. At all. My point was
that the JREF Challenge can so easily be investigated. It
would take you about a minute to find records of Challenge
attempts on their site and satisfy your curiosity.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>We were talking about the dollar amount spent on
>>research. In homeopathy, it's zilch. If it were
>>otherwise, the literature would be replete with current
>>papers. It isn't. OK?
>
> There are nearly 3000 entries in PubMed entering
> homeopathy. A brief review, as I've done over the past few
> days of our discussion has yielded some evidence for
> efficacy--and yep, a number of studies failing to find
> benefit. Bet ya never looked.

I have. Bugger all current research.

>>> One HUGE problem with ALL clinical research is that
>>> negative studies are often NOT published--however, I note
>>> that this is LESS the case with complementary and
>>> alternative approaches to medicine.
>>
>>Evidence please.
>
> Google is your friend, dear. Look it up.

Tell me what to look under. I have looked and can't find any
evidence that this is or isn't true. Where did you get this
information from?

>>There *should* be evidence of a very small effect because
>>that's exactly what happens in cases where no effect exists.
>>Do you need more explanation of this fact?
>
> No, I don't need to see your repetitions of statements with
> never ONCE a reference to anything but a magician.

It happens all the time in most types of research. A weird
result that needs replication. Here's a famous address on this
subject written by Richard Feynman.

http://clsdemo.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.htm

>
> "Josephson" and "American Physical Society"
>>>
>>> How about these?
>>>
>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/st-
>>> ory.jsp?story=552905 http://www.amhmg.org/Histamin2004.pdf
>>
>>How about "so what"? Marginal effects. And. as you note,
>>needs replication. Badly.
>
> You're the one who needs it badly. I'll bet you a nickel you
> didn't even LOOK at this site. I'll bet you wouldn't know
> HOW to cogently criticize the article.

The first opens with the observation that replication is
needed.

The second is study that needs independent replication. What
am I missing?
>
> Wow. You are SO bent out of shape over this. What is the
> emotional problem you have--this urgent need to convince me
> of homeopathy's lack of worth?

I have a pet peeve about supernatural claims in general. Like
most skeptics, I would love to see conclusive proof that
there's something real going on there. But, so far, it's the
same old crap in numerous forms.

> LOL...if you try to tell me global warming is not
> happening...well, dear...i can only hope you'll
> purchase a clue.

Some other time, perhaps. I have an issue with enviro-whiners.
But it's way off topic here.
>
> Little wonder your favorite word is idiot! For I think
> she doth...

I assume you're misquoting Shakespeare here. But, I think what
you're trying to say is more like "Pot. Kettle. etc."

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>Yocan't know unless you've been informed. Which you now
>>have. And what does my "real name" have to do with the
>>validity of what I write. I'm hardly anonymous.
>
> I see. So is Happy Dog or moo your real name??

Actually, Happy Dog is a real name. So is Le Moo (the
third). I have both on some of my credit cards. My blood is
made of laughter.
>
>>>>I note that you've, basically, resorted to diversion by
>>>>casting aspersions instead of directly addressing the
>>>>point.
>>>
>>> Excuse me? Who is the one calling people an Idiot all
>>> the time?
>>
>>I call idiots idiots. I've shown where you fail to address a
>>point and respond with diversion.
>
> I think you respond with diversion as you did above in re
> your identity.

Nobody's immune. But I asked a legitimate question. How does
revealing my birth name alter the validity of what I write? I
don't post from an anonymous account. And my name and address
have been revealed on Usenet a few times by losers who think
they're being particularly clever. What is your need to know?
What would this knowledge serve. I'm curious. If you email me,
I'll respond with the relevant details. I lead a fairly public
life. I'm not hiding anything.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>The clsim is that obvious effects exist. So, it should be as
>>simple as having an average person, by taking a homeopathic
>>remedy, demonstrate that they can tell when they have or
>>haven't.
>
> I see. Give someone a tablet of tetracycline and they'll
> know if they have or haven't.

*Someone* will "know" this. Easily. I really doubt that you
believe otherwise. Now you're engaging in semantics.

>>> That's based on a study? Actually, I did see one study
>>> where only about half (expected amount) of practitioners
>>> of the few that responded could tell when they were given
>>> a particular nostrum. Not sure what that means.
>>
>>You ask if there's a study that shows this and then tell us
>>that you've seen one.
>
> I have--but apparently either you have not or didn't bother
> to share it? You never offer any citations, just your
> vaunted opinion and claims of having reviewed the data,
> which I neither dispute nor endorse but find questionable
> when you hide your identity and offer only a magician as a
> resource, albeit a colorful one.

We are talking about apparently supernatural effects. A master
conjuror is an excellent observer when studying apparently
impossible claims.
>
>>Are you seriously suggesting that the manufacturers of
>>homeopathic products couldn't afford to do simple studies
>>that address the questions of whether an effect actually
>>exists? If you were in management at, say, Boiron, would you
>>be doing your shareholders any favours by addressing this
>>basic question with a study?
>
> LOL....sure, and if the results were positive, you'd dismiss
> them claiming that it was due to the malfeasance of the
> funder who has a vested interest! But sure, I think it would
> be cool to see Boiron do some studies. More companies should
> get involved....but they are not cheap. Even the simplest
> ones, depending upon where they're conducted, by whom, etc.

I have a pet conspiracy theory about the homeopathic
manufacturers. I've tried to investigate it but gotten
nowhere. Jacques Benveniste was apparently dropped (as in
support withdrawn) by major homeopathic remedy manufacturers
when ha started making some of the most easily verifiable
claims about homeopathy and massive dilutions. I think he was
dumped *because* he didn't stick to research that wouldn't be
definitive (like subtle, marginal effects.) I can't prove it.
But it's a fact that his great promise (he was championed by
Josephson and many homeopathic advocates) faded into
obscurity. He passed away last year.

>>Replication would "help"? Replications would change the
>>course of scientific history.
>
> I don't think it's that dramatic, frankly.

You are wrong. Absolutely wrong. Almost any physicist or
chemist will confirm this. I get this argument all the time
from psychics., They claim that their powers are "no big
deal". They don't understand the physics that would be
affected by proof.

>>We're not talking about pharmacological remedies. But you
>>keep bring them up as if you're debating with advocates of
>>the FDA.
>
> No. I'm just saying that many of the same requests/demands
> etc. are the kind undertaken by the mainstream--with often
> questionable results. I'm saying that I think NO degree of
> evidence would ever satisfy you. Your mind is made up. Even
> a replicated study you would dispute.

Again, get stuffed. I've shown where I've changed my mind
before on scientific matters. I am open to new evidence. But
all I see is the same old crap. I have said what it would take
to convince me. The ability to differentiate between massively
diluted remedies and the original dilute. If I saw that, I'd
by quite excited, actually.

>>There's no theory. There's claims of obvious effects yet
>>precious little evidence of them.
>
> No, you're wrong. There IS a theory. A basis upon which this
> treatment modality is based. You find that basis incredible.
> Not unreasonably.

There is no theory that corresponds to any currently accepted
physical theory. It's woven from whole cloth or it's a gross
misrepresenattion of current theory. Perpetual motion claims
and claims for the aether are famous for this type of error.
>
>>By chance, there should be the occasional positive result.
>>The claim is that the effects are dramatic and obvious. The
>>reality is that the evidence for such claims should be easy
>>to produce. Yet it barely exists. Which is exactly what
>>should be expected if the claims are false.
>
> Barely exists is not the same as does not exist. That is
> also your characterization.

Again, we would expect it to barely exist if the claims
were false.

> Perhaps you'd be more specific? You noted this site before
> but there is nothing I've seen (and I did a search) about
> sales of homeopathic remedies.

Try http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/7/6/537#REF-
-FOC7071-7

There's a reference there. Took me one minute to find.
>
> Anyway, you've given no numbers, just a vague reference to
> billions and a reference to sales in France (uncited)...and
> I have indicated that this is of no relevance to the utility
> of the intervention. Lots of stuff is sold that doesn't do
> squat (or may be harmful) in the arena of healthcare. Lots
> of useful stuff is sold. So what?

Wasting time and public funds on something that does nothing
is, obviously, harmful.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>>> There are nearly 3000 entries in PubMed entering
>>> homeopathy. A brief review, as I've done over the past few
>>> days of our discussion has yielded some evidence for
>>> efficacy--and yep, a number of studies failing to find
>>> benefit. Bet ya never looked.
>>
>>I have. Bugger all current research.
>
> Right. That's the crux of the issue. While you claim you'd
> love to see the evidence, you ignore what is extant.

Bugger all current research. Nada. Zip. The literature should
be replete with new stuff. It isn't. That's my point. OK?
>
>>>>> One HUGE problem with ALL clinical research is that
>>>>> negative studies are often NOT published--however, I
>>>>> note that this is LESS the case with complementary and
>>>>> alternative approaches to medicine.
>>>>
>>>>Evidence please.
>>>
>>> Google is your friend, dear. Look it up.
>>
>>Tell me what to look under. I have looked and can't find any
>>evidence that this is or isn't true. Where did you get this
>>information from?
>
> My work in the AIDS activist community. Science magazine
> articles. Even the NIH. Try PLOS.

Can you be more specific? Your claim is that there is more
intellectual honesty in alternative and complementary
research. You said that negative studies are more frequently
published by alternative medicine considerate "approaches".
That's a pretty damning claim since it suggests a severe lack
of integrity in mainstream clinical research. I am again
asking where you got this information. What is the basis for
this claim and where can I avail myself of it. I don't think
it exists. I think you're blowing smoke. Here's an easy chance
to prove me wrong.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>Nobody's immune. But I asked a legitimate question. How does
>>revealing my birth name alter the validity of what I write?
>>I don't post from an anonymous account. And my name and
>>address have been revealed on Usenet a few times by losers
>>who think they're being particularly clever. What is your
>>need to know? What would this knowledge serve. I'm curious.
>>If you email me, I'll respond with the relevant details. I
>>lead a fairly public life. I'm not hiding anything.
>
> I just find it oddly cowardly not to just sign your name.

Many people don't. Answer the damn question. What difference
does it make? I'm NOT anonymous. I'll email you lots of crap
about me if you send a personal email. So, if it's that
important to you, email me and ask. You've made a bunch of
posts suggesting I'm a coward. I've, before this, offered to
provide you with the information you think I'm hiding. And you
still haven't asked. Was Mark Twain a coward? H.H. Monroe?
Name a writer who used a nickname who you think was a coward.
Ever had anyone close to you write fabulously personal stuff
and not sign their real name? Doggy has. Do you think it made
increment one shit difference to besotted or the recipient?

lm

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>>>>The clsim is that obvious effects exist. So, it should be
>>>>as simple as having an average person, by taking a
>>>>homeopathic remedy, demonstrate that they can tell when
>>>>they have or haven't.
>>>
>>> I see. Give someone a tablet of tetracycline and they'll
>>> know if they have or haven't.
>>
>>*Someone* will "know" this. Easily. I really doubt that you
>>believe otherwise. Now you're engaging in semantics.
>
> Nope. You made an odd claim that giving an "average"
> person a homeopathic remedy, they'll know. So the same
> holds true for clearly powerful allopathic medicines, yes?
> The answer: No.

No, idiot. They'll "know" because easy tests can be done to
determine whether they've taken *anything*. If you're
suggesting that they have some pathology that blocks this
reality from their knowledge, then you're dealing with a crazy
person and are, once again, back into the realm of semantics.

>>I have said what it would take to convince me. The ability
>>to differentiate between massively diluted remedies and the
>>original dilute. If I saw that, I'd by quite excited,
>>actually.
>
> Depends on how one defines that ability.

Way beyond chance. OK?

> By contrast, we may simply not have the tools available to
> us to adequately determine the changes ostensibly exerted
> by preparing arsenic or black widow spider venom or
> whatever in the homeopathic way. Or if we do, it's probably
> WAY more sophisticated that to get some lab to do the
> analysis would be costly, to put it mildly. Not my
> bailiwick--I wouldn't know.

We're talking about overthrowing current physics. People
regularly claim that the evidence is readily available.

> http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/7/6/537#REF-F-
> OC7071-7
>
> Thanks. Interesting article. Doesn't support your contention
> of "billions" - it states:

> " In 1997, worldwide sales of homeopathic products were
> estimated to be $1.15 billion.7"

1.15 billion in one year is billions.

>>Wasting time and public funds on something that does nothing
>>is, obviously, harmful.
>
> Good lord, that's a marvelous point. My whole issue with how
> you are so bent out of shape on this is further amplified by
> this comment. Do you think ENORMOUS amounts of time and
> public funds (and certainly, I think NO US public funds are
> expended on homeopathy) aren't wasted on a whole range of
> worthless--indeed, horrifically HARMFUL--activities aren't
> shot down the toilet every single day?

Yep. Did some skeptic here defend them? No, they didn't.

moo

[David Wrig]

In article <gqgh61h4v14qbisin52c8us5fu01662ctu@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:06:37 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>(David Wright) wrote:
>
>
>>>Actually, I'm not as hard on me-too drugs PER SE as I used
>>>to be. Different statins have different drug-drug
>>>interaction profiles and levels of efficacy. Pravastatin is
>>>not the same as atorvastatin.
>>
>>No, but it's highly questionable that we need *all* the
>>statins out there right now.
>
>How many are out there? (That haven't been taken off the
>market for one reason or another.)

I don't even try to keep track. But I still don't think that
having so many is a good use of resources (in terms of
public health).

>>>But that's not the issue. The issue is that ONLY one
>>>company can make atorvastatin. Period. Until the patent
>>>runs out. There is NO competition for that drug and thus it
>>>is THE biggest drug seller on the market, making the
>>>company BILLIONS of dollars per year.
>>
>>You have to recover the hundreds of millions burned up by
>>testing somehow. What's your alternative? I can't figure out
>>how you're going to both allow anyone to make the stuff, and
>>still give the companies some way to make back their costs.
>
>Well, first the costs of development are a TINY fraction of
>the profits.

That's true on the blockbusters. What about the others? Most
drugs aren't blockbusters, but that doesn't mean they cost
less to develop. By the way, I'm not in favor of mass-market
prescription drug advertising and I think it was a sad day
when it was allowed.

>The profits made by the industry and the inflationary charges
>of drugs WAY exceed any other industry.

The inflation does, and the ROI is at the head of the class,
but it's not double the second-place category or anything.

>They hold our lives hostage to their greed.

You still aren't telling me what your fix is.

>>Patent has always implied monopoly, and monopoly has always
>>implied "all that the traffic will bear." OK, you don't
>>*have* to do it that way, but you can.
>
>I just wish people wouldn't confuse capitalism/free markets
>and competition with what pharma is doing. They're not the
>same by any stretch.

As long as patents exist, you're going to see this sort of
thing. Your solution is?

>>>>>>You'll have a harder time making that one stick. It's
>>>>>>certainly true in the case of some persons, no question,
>>>>>>but since only about 10% of health care dollars go to
>>>>>>prescription costs, even if you cut that to zero, things
>>>>>>are still going to be expensive and the system is still
>>>>>>broken.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where did you get the 10% figure?
>>>>
>>>>Newsweek.
>>>
>>>A great peer-reviewed journal, I see. So. Issue? Article?
>>
>>Hell, I don't have it off hand. But I've seen the same
>>figure elsewhere. If you don't believe me, fine. I don't
>>care whether you believe me or not.
>
>OK. I don't believe you. Don't take it personally.

This is a few years out of date, but it was almost exactly 10%
then. Note also the amount taken by insurers.

http://www.healthaffairs.org/press/janfeb0301.htm

>>>Depends on your criteria for what works. Can you see though
>>>that you're asking about whether a SYSTEM works or not?
>>>Does allopathy work? You could cite a failed drug study
>>>that was dropped due to QT prolongation or other serious
>>>adverse event. Then would that mean allopathy doesn't work?
>>
>>But there are plenty of allopathic remedies where they
>>obviously do work, whereas there is NO homeopathic remedy in
>>the same category. But there would be, if homeopathy worked
>>as wonderfully as its adherents claim.
>
>LOL. OK, you may be right. But I have provided some citations
>that suggest evidence for efficacy for some remedies when,
>based on the notion that the multiple dilutions render ANY
>homeopathic agent essentially inert, there should NEVER be
>EVER any evidence for efficacy. And yet there are some data.
>
>Does this mean there is something wrong with the vaunted DBPC
>methodology? What might that suggest for DBPC methods used
>for drug trials?

Nothing, really. In fact, it shows the value of DBPC trials.
The original homeopathic pharmacopia was created with trials
that were anything *but* double-blind. It's way too easy to
convince yourself of something under those conditions, even
when you're trying to be scrupulously honest.

>Or might it mean that somehow, despite the very
>understandable objections, homeopathic techniques can have
>some effect (and therefore, shaking/diluting does not
>necessarily result in an inert substance)?

Doubtful. This does also send us back to the widely-varying
definition of "homeopathic," since 2X and 12C dilutions are
very different.

>>>>And the non-existent "memory" of same.
>>>
>>>Really? You're sure of that?
>>
>>Yep.
>
>A man of faith!

Gotta start somewhere. The evidence thus far has been highly
unconvincing.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff
loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of
the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that
conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)

[Gmcarter]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:15:14 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
(David Wright) wrote:

snip...

>Actually, an easily-addressed dodge. You can still run a
>proper test, even with individualized treatments. The trick
>is to intervene at the point where remedies are dispensed.
>You simply vary whether the patients are getting the actual
>prescribed remedy or a placebo, and the dispenser does not
>know what's in the vial or pills being given out.

Thanks for the interesting thought. I appreciate it.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:10:41 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
(David Wright) wrote:

>In article <gqgh61h4v14qbisin52c8us5fu01662ctu@4ax.com>,
>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:06:37 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>>(David Wright) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Actually, I'm not as hard on me-too drugs PER SE as I used
>>>>to be. Different statins have different drug-drug
>>>>interaction profiles and levels of efficacy. Pravastatin
>>>>is not the same as atorvastatin.
>>>
>>>No, but it's highly questionable that we need *all* the
>>>statins out there right now.
>>
>>How many are out there? (That haven't been taken off the
>>market for one reason or another.)
>
>I don't even try to keep track. But I still don't think that
>having so many is a good use of resources (in terms of
>public health).

Isn't that for market forces?

Or physicians?

>>>>But that's not the issue. The issue is that ONLY one
>>>>company can make atorvastatin. Period. Until the patent
>>>>runs out. There is NO competition for that drug and thus
>>>>it is THE biggest drug seller on the market, making the
>>>>company BILLIONS of dollars per year.
>>>
>>>You have to recover the hundreds of millions burned up by
>>>testing somehow. What's your alternative? I can't figure
>>>out how you're going to both allow anyone to make the
>>>stuff, and still give the companies some way to make back
>>>their costs.
>>
>>Well, first the costs of development are a TINY fraction of
>>the profits.
>
>That's true on the blockbusters. What about the others? Most
>drugs aren't blockbusters, but that doesn't mean they cost
>less to develop.

I believe in general the economic analyses are for the
industry or for specific companies as a whole and not
"blockbuster"-dependent.

Overall, profits WAY exceed R&D costs.

>By the way, I'm not in favor of mass-market prescription drug
>advertising and I think it was a sad day when it was allowed.

Agreed. And the consequences of this boneheaded move for
public health are becoming more and more apparent. As a
physician said to me yesterday, if someone has to ask their
doctor for a prescription for erythropoietin, they oughta fire
the doctor.

>>The profits made by the industry and the inflationary
>>charges of drugs WAY exceed any other industry.
>
>The inflation does, and the ROI is at the head of the class,
>but it's not double the second-place category or anything.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

>>They hold our lives hostage to their greed.
>
>You still aren't telling me what your fix is.

Did you ask?

Actually, I think an interlocking set of changes are
essential, including:

1) Price controls on drugs, diagnostics, devices;
2) Patent reform;
3) A robust single payer healthcare system; and
4) Increased public spending on drug development and
open-sourcing of inventor discoveries.
5) Increased incentives for INDIVIDUAL discoverer's of novel
agents, etc. rather than screwing the inventor in favor of
giving it to the company CEO's and their golden
parachutes, etc.

These, in toto, will vastly alleviate the suffering and death
the current system causes as well as being fiscally being more
responsible--we could undoubtedly reduce the portion of the
GDP utilized for healthcare from 15% or more to about 9-10% or
possibly less--and cover everyone.

Plus, a robust system would allow for parallel private
insurance
(e.g., Germany) and would still allow for a vigorous and very
profitable private sector industry.

One NON-fix is the notion people should get their
prescriptions filled in Canada. That's ridiculous.

Those, of course, are only some of the measures that could
be undertaken. Other things might include stopping the US
Trade Representative from forging these vile trade deals
that screw countries out of the right to access generic
medications (TRIPS Plus) in the context of diseases ranging
from dengue to AIDS.

>>>Patent has always implied monopoly, and monopoly has always
>>>implied "all that the traffic will bear." OK, you don't
>>>*have* to do it that way, but you can.
>>
>>I just wish people wouldn't confuse capitalism/free markets
>>and competition with what pharma is doing. They're not the
>>same by any stretch.
>
>As long as patents exist, you're going to see this sort of
>thing. Your solution is?

See above.

>This is a few years out of date, but it was almost exactly
>10% then. Note also the amount taken by insurers.
>
>http://www.healthaffairs.org/press/janfeb0301.htm

Intreresting article--thanks. I'd be curious to see more
recent data but I think you mean:

"Prescription Drug Spending Still Outpacing Other Sectors

Although moderating slightly, prescription drug spending
continues to grow almost twice as fast as all other health
services. The pace in prescription drug spending eased to 15.7
percent in 2001, down from
16.4 percent in 2000 and 19.7 percent in 1999. Prescription
drugs consumed $140.6 billion of the total health care
budget in 2001. Levit and her colleagues say that this
moderation in spending growth can be traced in part to a
deceleration in the rate of new drug introduction. Other
factors that could be contributing to a moderation in
spending: rapid adoption of multi-tier co-payment plans,
increasing co-payments and other cost control strategies
such as generic incentive programs or drug utilization
review. Federal officials say these other factors likely
contributed to consumer out-of-pocket spending accounting
for a greater share of the drug spending increase in 2001
than in prior years. "

I think you base your 10% figure on the total of $140.6
billion given the $1.4 trillion total healthcare spending.
(And homeopathy is clearly a significant and damaging portion
of this...oh, wait..dead thread...)

Yet something like 43 million Americans in 2001 were uninsured
and many millions more underinsured. Since then--the situation
has worsened. 46 million, I think it is? Premiums are up,
employer insurance is down, co-pays are up....

Clearly, though, hospitalization costs are a significant
contributor.

And now, thanks to the repugnicans, US citizens crushed by
healthcare debt--even WITH insurance--will be unable to
declare bankruptcy without entering into a state quite similar
to indentured servitude while even MORE wealth goes to the
already obscenely wealthy.

That's democracy? Or capitalism? Or just grand theft?

>>>>Depends on your criteria for what works. Can you see
>>>>though that you're asking about whether a SYSTEM works or
>>>>not? Does allopathy work? You could cite a failed drug
>>>>study that was dropped due to QT prolongation or other
>>>>serious adverse event. Then would that mean allopathy
>>>>doesn't work?
>>>
>>>But there are plenty of allopathic remedies where they
>>>obviously do work, whereas there is NO homeopathic remedy
>>>in the same category. But there would be, if homeopathy
>>>worked as wonderfully as its adherents claim.
>>
>>LOL. OK, you may be right. But I have provided some
>>citations that suggest evidence for efficacy for some
>>remedies when, based on the notion that the multiple
>>dilutions render ANY homeopathic agent essentially inert,
>>there should NEVER be EVER any evidence for efficacy. And
>>yet there are some data.
>>
>>Does this mean there is something wrong with the vaunted
>>DBPC methodology? What might that suggest for DBPC methods
>>used for drug trials?
>
>Nothing, really. In fact, it shows the value of DBPC trials.
>The original homeopathic pharmacopia was created with trials
>that were anything *but* double-blind.

LOL...It was created before people even really THOUGHT
about DB or PC!

>It's way too easy to convince yourself of something under
>those conditions, even when you're trying to be
>scrupulously honest.

Indeed. Wherefore DBPC....and even then, of course, there are
tarnishes on that gold-plated methodology. But as such goes in
human affairs, it's pretty damn good.

>>Or might it mean that somehow, despite the very
>>understandable objections, homeopathic techniques can have
>>some effect (and therefore, shaking/diluting does not
>>necessarily result in an inert substance)?
>
>Doubtful. This does also send us back to the widely-varying
>definition of "homeopathic," since 2X and 12C dilutions are
>very different.

I agree. I am not convinced by either the claims of homeopathy
nor by the flaccid arguments of Happy Dog.

>Gotta start somewhere. The evidence thus far has been highly
>unconvincing.

Others clearly interpret the extant data differently--but I
think most would agree that ... the old refrain ... more data
are needed. LOL.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 06:27:43 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>>>Nobody's immune. But I asked a legitimate question. How
>>>does revealing my birth name alter the validity of what I
>>>write? I don't post from an anonymous account. And my name
>>>and address have been revealed on Usenet a few times by
>>>losers who think they're being particularly clever. What is
>>>your need to know? What would this knowledge serve. I'm
>>>curious. If you email me, I'll respond with the relevant
>>>details. I lead a fairly public life. I'm not hiding
>>>anything.
>>
>> I just find it oddly cowardly not to just sign your name.
>
>Many people don't. Answer the damn question.

Nah

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>>> Nope. Don't know him. Are you Peter Bowditch?
>>
>>No.. Nor is he me.
>
> Another usenet denizen then!

One I admire. His research and proclamations are accurate.

>>Benneth claimed he could demonstrate the ability to
>>distingush between massively diluted homeopathic remedies
>>and the original dilute. If you like, I'll send you a
>>summary of the Benneth affair, written by a homeopathy
>>supporter and all around fair guy named Syd Baumel. It
>>details the sort of problems there are getting a homeopathy
>>promoter to make good on their claims.
>
> OK...I found one: http://www.psicounsel.com/randiuse.html
>
> Oh my god. You people are ALL really strange. Usenet indeed.

Are you actually going to use Kettler (psicounsel) as a
reference for anything you write? This is as far as you
got with this? I offer wisdom on the topic. And you show
no interest.

>>Usenet darling. Don't take it personally. At all. My point
>>was that the JREF Challenge can so easily be investigated.
>>It would take you about a minute to find records of
>>Challenge attempts on their site and satisfy your curiosity.
>
> I'm familiar with the interesting case study of the abnormal
> psychology of usenet denizens! You low life miserable,
> lying, piece of living breathing shit. Howzzat?

"Lying"? That's a pretty strong accusation. Care to back it
up? I doubt you can. This is a typical kook tactic. But,
you've now made a particularly significant claim. Asshole,
imbecile, scumbag; all subjective. But you've called me a
liar. I think you've just fucked yourself and now owe me an
apology. Show your evidence or bend over.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>Nobody's immune. But I asked a legitimate question. How
>>>>does revealing my birth name alter the validity of what I
>>>>write? I don't post from an anonymous account. And my name
>>>>and address have been revealed on Usenet a few times by
>>>>losers who think they're being particularly clever. What
>>>>is your need to know? What would this knowledge serve. I'm
>>>>curious. If you email me, I'll respond with the relevant
>>>>details. I lead a fairly public life. I'm not hiding
>>>>anything.
>>>
>>> I just find it oddly cowardly not to just sign your name.
>>
>>Many people don't. Answer the damn question.

> Nah
>
I'll take that as an admission that knowing my name or
personal details wouldn't make any difference to the
conversation. Like most people who bring this up, you were
just using it as a diversion and an excuse for name calling.

moo

[David Wrig]

In article <p31o619ddcghr6vqmr39n68h0m10rum7fj@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:10:41 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>(David Wright) wrote:
>
>>In article <gqgh61h4v14qbisin52c8us5fu01662ctu@4ax.com>,
>>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:06:37 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>>>(David Wright) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Actually, I'm not as hard on me-too drugs PER SE as I
>>>>>used to be. Different statins have different drug-drug
>>>>>interaction profiles and levels of efficacy. Pravastatin
>>>>>is not the same as atorvastatin.
>>>>
>>>>No, but it's highly questionable that we need *all* the
>>>>statins out there right now.
>>>
>>>How many are out there? (That haven't been taken off the
>>>market for one reason or another.)
>>
>>I don't even try to keep track. But I still don't think that
>>having so many is a good use of resources (in terms of
>>public health).
>
>Isn't that for market forces?

What market forces? You're the one who keeps claiming that the
whole patent thing makes a joke of capitalism.

I don't know about you, but I'm not one of those libertarian
religious fanatics who worship the market's ability to solve
all things.

>Or physicians?

Maybe. But we also keep hearing about how the pharm companies
manipulate the data, advertise, blah blah blah, so are the
physicians getting the straight dope?

>>>>>But that's not the issue. The issue is that ONLY one
>>>>>company can make atorvastatin. Period. Until the patent
>>>>>runs out. There is NO competition for that drug and thus
>>>>>it is THE biggest drug seller on the market, making the
>>>>>company BILLIONS of dollars per year.
>>>>
>>>>You have to recover the hundreds of millions burned up by
>>>>testing somehow. What's your alternative? I can't figure
>>>>out how you're going to both allow anyone to make the
>>>>stuff, and still give the companies some way to make back
>>>>their costs.
>>>
>>>Well, first the costs of development are a TINY fraction of
>>>the profits.
>>
>>That's true on the blockbusters. What about the others? Most
>>drugs aren't blockbusters, but that doesn't mean they cost
>>less to develop.
>
>I believe in general the economic analyses are for the
>industry or for specific companies as a whole and not
>"blockbuster"-dependent.
>
>Overall, profits WAY exceed R&D costs.

R&D costs are not the only costs.

>>>The profits made by the industry and the inflationary
>>>charges of drugs WAY exceed any other industry.
>>
>>The inflation does, and the ROI is at the head of the class,
>>but it's not double the second-place category or anything.
>
>I don't understand what you're saying here.

Although as a group, pharmaceutical companies are the most
profitable sector (based on ROI), they are not massively more
profitable than the sector in second place.

>>>They hold our lives hostage to their greed.
>>
>>You still aren't telling me what your fix is.
>
>Did you ask?

Yes.

>Actually, I think an interlocking set of changes are
>essential, including:
>
>1) Price controls on drugs, diagnostics, devices;
>2) Patent reform;

Meaning?

>3) A robust single payer healthcare system; and
>4) Increased public spending on drug development and
> open-sourcing of inventor discoveries.
>5) Increased incentives for INDIVIDUAL discoverer's of novel
> agents, etc. rather than screwing the inventor in favor of
> giving it to the company CEO's and their golden
> parachutes, etc.

But so many of those individual discoverors work for the
pharm companies. OK, many of them are, say, doctors, but they
are already making money off this (I know an oncologist who
does this).

>These, in toto, will vastly alleviate the suffering and death
>the current system causes as well as being fiscally being
>more responsible--we could undoubtedly reduce the portion of
>the GDP utilized for healthcare from 15% or more to about
>9-10% or possibly less--and cover everyone.

I thought it was more like 10% already? Anyway, the single
biggest things you could do would be the single-payer and
allowing that payer to negotiate prices with the drug
companies.

I disagree on the price controls. Those are a nightmare to
administer and may well not work because of that.

>One NON-fix is the notion people should get their
>prescriptions filled in Canada. That's ridiculous.

OK, how about Mexico? :-)

>>This is a few years out of date, but it was almost exactly
>>10% then. Note also the amount taken by insurers.
>>
>>http://www.healthaffairs.org/press/janfeb0301.htm
>
>Intreresting article--thanks. I'd be curious to see more
>recent data but I think you mean:
>
>"Prescription Drug Spending Still Outpacing Other Sectors

Yep.

>>Nothing, really. In fact, it shows the value of DBPC trials.
>>The original homeopathic pharmacopia was created with trials
>>that were anything *but* double-blind.
>
>LOL...It was created before people even really THOUGHT about
>DB or PC!

I know, it was a couple of hundred years ago. Very little has
changed since then, which is another indication that you're
dealing with religion here, not science.

>>>Or might it mean that somehow, despite the very
>>>understandable objections, homeopathic techniques can have
>>>some effect (and therefore, shaking/diluting does not
>>>necessarily result in an inert substance)?
>>
>>Doubtful. This does also send us back to the widely-varying
>>definition of "homeopathic," since 2X and 12C dilutions are
>>very different.
>
>I agree. I am not convinced by either the claims of
>homeopathy nor by the flaccid arguments of Happy Dog.

He's right, though, that if there were a replicated DBPC
trial of homeopathy, you'd be hearing a lot about it. We
heard way too much about that Lancet article and it wasn't
even all that positive.

>>Gotta start somewhere. The evidence thus far has been highly
>>unconvincing.
>
>Others clearly interpret the extant data differently--but I
>think most would agree that ... the old refrain ... more data
>are needed. LOL.

I don't even agree with that. If homeopathy really was highly
effective, we'd have seen the trials by now.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff
loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of
the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that
conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)

[Happy Dog]

"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net>
>>I agree with all this. My objection is to the claim that the
>>failure of controlled testing to verify the powerful effects
>>claimed is due to lack of involvement by the correct
>>authority. It's claimed by some homeopaths that the nature
>>of the prescription process makes it impossible to evaluate
>>the claims in a controlled setting. A perfect dodge.
>
> Actually, an easily-addressed dodge. You can still run a
> proper test, even with individualized treatments. The trick
> is to intervene at the point where remedies are dispensed.
> You simply vary whether the patients are getting the actual
> prescribed remedy or a placebo, and the dispenser does not
> know what's in the vial or pills being given out.
>
Except that many homeopaths claim that the treatment is
individualized. What works on one person may not work on
another. So they must know whether the remedies prescribed are
given instead of placebo. There's no claim that a particular
treatment always, or even usually, works on a particular
person. Neat, eh?

moo

[Happy Dog]

"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net>
>>Except that many homeopaths claim that the treatment is
>>individualized. What works on one person may not work on
>>another. So they must know whether the remedies prescribed
>>are given instead of placebo. There's no claim that a
>>particular treatment always, or even usually, works on a
>>particular person. Neat, eh?
>
> They claim they need to know whether the actual remedies
> were prescribed? Hah. Anyone who claims *that* is needed is
> clearly a charlatan.

That would describe most homeopaths. We've discussed this
before in 1999. The claim is that it's impossible to test in
an RCT because in real no-shit homeopathy there isn't a
claim that any particular remedy does anything consistently.
I used to have a good reference for this but I can't find it
right now.

moo

[Gmcarter]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:27:24 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
(David Wright) wrote:

>In article <p31o619ddcghr6vqmr39n68h0m10rum7fj@4ax.com>,
>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:10:41 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>>(David Wright) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <gqgh61h4v14qbisin52c8us5fu01662ctu@4ax.com>,
>>>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:06:37 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>>>>(David Wright) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, I'm not as hard on me-too drugs PER SE as I
>>>>>>used to be. Different statins have different drug-drug
>>>>>>interaction profiles and levels of efficacy. Pravastatin
>>>>>>is not the same as atorvastatin.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, but it's highly questionable that we need *all* the
>>>>>statins out there right now.
>>>>
>>>>How many are out there? (That haven't been taken off the
>>>>market for one reason or another.)
>>>
>>>I don't even try to keep track. But I still don't think
>>>that having so many is a good use of resources (in terms of
>>>public health).
>>
>>Isn't that for market forces?
>
>What market forces? You're the one who keeps claiming that
>the whole patent thing makes a joke of capitalism.

LOL...you're right and I was being tongue in cheek here in
part--but from a business perspective, "me-too" drugs riding
on the enormously profitable coattails of a lead blockbuster
make plenty of sense, yes?

>I don't know about you, but I'm not one of those libertarian
>religious fanatics who worship the market's ability to solve
>all things.

Nope, I'm not.

Seriously, I was just commenting more on the fact that
SOMETIMES me-too drugs are an OK thing from a medical
perspective. E.g., people on antiretroviral therapy have
pretty restricted options in terms of statins due to drug-drug
interactions and had there been only one in that class, there
would be no other STATIN options. (There are, however, some
very interesting other options that may be safer and as
effective, while managing a wider range of lipid dyscrasias.)

>>Or physicians?
>
> Maybe. But we also keep hearing about how the pharm
> companies manipulate the data, advertise, blah blah blah, so
> are the physicians getting the straight dope?

Probably not! And given the kind of patter the legions of
fresh-scrubbed PR reps, it is very doubtful...but SOME docs
apparently like all the pens, notepads and trips to Hawaii....

snip
>>Overall, profits WAY exceed R&D costs.
>
>R&D costs are not the only costs.

They're the most pertinent ones--and indeed, "R&D" has often
been bloated to include marketing (shovelled inappropriately
under the umbrella of "devleopment").

>>>>The profits made by the industry and the inflationary
>>>>charges of drugs WAY exceed any other industry.
>>>
>>>The inflation does, and the ROI is at the head of the
>>>class, but it's not double the second-place category or
>>>anything.
>>
>>I don't understand what you're saying here.
>
>Although as a group, pharmaceutical companies are the most
>profitable sector (based on ROI), they are not massively more
>profitable than the sector in second place.

What is in second place? How far?

I think it is the auto industry. People can live without a car
and/or have a fairly wide selection.

People suffer needlessly and often die without healthcare.

>>Actually, I think an interlocking set of changes are
>>essential, including:
>>
>>1) Price controls on drugs, diagnostics, devices;
>>2) Patent reform;
>
>Meaning?

A good and rather complex question I don't have the answer to.
But it could range from tweaking current patent law (and
expanding the US Patent Office to have more expert and sharper
reviewers who don't just grant patents willy nilly but
actually check things like prior art and novelty as well as
scope to outright eliminating patents).

>>3) A robust single payer healthcare system; and
>>4) Increased public spending on drug development and
>> open-sourcing of inventor discoveries.
>>5) Increased incentives for INDIVIDUAL discoverer's of novel
>> agents, etc. rather than screwing the inventor in favor
>> of giving it to the company CEO's and their golden
>> parachutes, etc.
>
>But so many of those individual discoverors work for the
>pharm companies. OK, many of them are, say, doctors, but they
>are already making money off this (I know an oncologist who
>does this).

Recent letter in Science indicates how little inventors get.
Changing the corporate relationship to benefit inventors might
be one avenue...

>>These, in toto, will vastly alleviate the suffering and
>>death the current system causes as well as being fiscally
>>being more responsible--we could undoubtedly reduce the
>>portion of the GDP utilized for healthcare from 15% or more
>>to about 9-10% or possibly less--and cover everyone.
>
>I thought it was more like 10% already? Anyway, the single
>biggest things you could do would be the single-payer and
>allowing that payer to negotiate prices with the drug
>companies.

No way! And current projections suggest it may rise to as
high as 24% by 2012: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/co-
ntent/abstract/hlthaff.w3.1v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RES-
ULTFORMAT=&fulltext=gdp&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1114-
420899021_254&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=1&jou-
rnalcode=healthaff

>I disagree on the price controls. Those are a nightmare to
>administer and may well not work because of that.

Oh, utter nonsense. Most industrialized countries around the
world have price controls. The VA negotiates sharply for
good pricing.

>>>This is a few years out of date, but it was almost exactly
>>>10% then. Note also the amount taken by insurers.
>>>
>>>http://www.healthaffairs.org/press/janfeb0301.htm
>>
>>Intreresting article--thanks. I'd be curious to see more
>>recent data but I think you mean:
>>
>>"Prescription Drug Spending Still Outpacing Other Sectors
>
>Yep.

I wonder also if that 10% is just out of hospital expenses as
opposed to drug costs for in-patient care?

>>>Nothing, really. In fact, it shows the value of DBPC
>>>trials. The original homeopathic pharmacopia was created
>>>with trials that were anything *but* double-blind.
>>
>>LOL...It was created before people even really THOUGHT about
>>DB or PC!
>
>I know, it was a couple of hundred years ago. Very little has
>changed since then, which is another indication that you're
>dealing with religion here, not science.

You could say that about allopathic medicine or ANY
medicine. Most therapies currently are NOT prescribed based
on DBPC data.

That doesn't mean they don't work. Of course, that
argument doesn't mean homeopathy DOES work either. It's
just a poor argument.

George M. Carter

[bae]

In article <RaSae.50$511.3@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, David
Wright <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote:
>In article <gqgh61h4v14qbisin52c8us5fu01662ctu@4ax.com>,
>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>>You have to recover the hundreds of millions burned up by
>>>testing somehow. What's your alternative? I can't figure
>>>out how you're going to both allow anyone to make the
>>>stuff, and still give the companies some way to make back
>>>their costs.
>>
>>Well, first the costs of development are a TINY fraction of
>>the profits.
>
>That's true on the blockbusters. What about the others? Most
>drugs aren't blockbusters, but that doesn't mean they cost
>less to develop.

Don't forget the cost of the ones that don't make it all the
way through testing. Sometimes they make it all the way to
fiendishly expensive clinical trials before they turn out to
be unmarketable due to an unacceptable side effect profile, or
inferior effectiveness. And all the animal tests aren't all
that cheap, either, nor the in vitro, etc. Just inventing new
compounds to test, and working out methods of production
larger than lab-scale, costs a lot in salaries, lab space,
supplies and equipment.

[Gmcarter]

On 25 Apr 2005 13:21:14 GMT, bae@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu wrote:

>In article <RaSae.50$511.3@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, David
>Wright <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote:
>>In article <gqgh61h4v14qbisin52c8us5fu01662ctu@4ax.com>,
>>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>>>You have to recover the hundreds of millions burned up by
>>>>testing somehow. What's your alternative? I can't figure
>>>>out how you're going to both allow anyone to make the
>>>>stuff, and still give the companies some way to make back
>>>>their costs.
>>>
>>>Well, first the costs of development are a TINY fraction of
>>>the profits.
>>
>>That's true on the blockbusters. What about the others? Most
>>drugs aren't blockbusters, but that doesn't mean they cost
>>less to develop.
>
>Don't forget the cost of the ones that don't make it all the
>way through testing. Sometimes they make it all the way to
>fiendishly expensive clinical trials before they turn out to
>be unmarketable due to an unacceptable side effect profile,
>or inferior effectiveness. And all the animal tests aren't
>all that cheap, either, nor the in vitro, etc. Just inventing
>new compounds to test, and working out methods of production
>larger than lab-scale, costs a lot in salaries, lab space,
>supplies and equipment.

Yes, it does--that's what I was talking about. And
STILL....R&D costs, though, as a TOTAL expenditure of pharma
is relatively low. Those costs can further be reined in
(particularly if the egregious practice of shovelling various
marketing costs under "development" is stopped).

And that includes failed drugs. Indeed, the industry is
notorious for saving the WRONG way on R&D by NOT conducting
post-marketing Phase IV studies that is part of the FDA
approval package. And then crap like Vioxx happens later.

In contrast, the ever more dense thicket of patents up- and
downstream in drug development, from in vitro to mouse
models, and the concomitant and absurd licensing fees (not to
mention chronic patent litigation) is driving up costs of R&D
further and completely artificially and arbitrarily. It's
obscene and insane.

But you do raise the point that clinical studies can be
expensive--most of the cost being researchers salaries and
personnel. Only a tiny fraction goes toward lab tests and
the cost of drug in even fairly large studies is
negligible...because the cost of manufacture is very often
... er... homeopathic...compared to the amount they wind
up charging.

Ergo, since industry is SO completely out of control and
utterly destroying the miserable patchwork that passes for
healthcare in the United States, price controls are an
essential piece of managing the problem.

(And goes to the point that Happy mutt made about gee, RCTs
are cheap...uh-huh...sure....)

George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in

> (And goes to the point that Happy mutt made about gee, RCTs
> are cheap...uh-huh...sure....)

Hey Carter. Quit mis-staing my position. Show me where I said
that RCTs are cheap or withdraw that remark.

moo

[Gmcarter]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:28:40 -0400, "Happy Dog"
<happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>
>> (And goes to the point that Happy mutt made about gee, RCTs
>> are cheap...uh-huh...sure....)
>
>Hey Carter. Quit mis-staing my position. Show me where I said
>that RCTs are cheap or withdraw that remark.

Google is your friend.

I withdraw no remarks.

George M. Carter

[Alf Christ]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:59:23 GMT, GMCarter
<fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

>Yes, it does--that's what I was talking about. And
>STILL....R&D costs, though, as a TOTAL expenditure of pharma
>is relatively low. Those costs can further be reined in
>(particularly if the egregious practice of shovelling various
>marketing costs under "development" is stopped).

What about insurance against failed experiments, where one or
a couple test persons die. Since there is no upper limits for
what you may sue them for, such R&D must scale the insurance
for the possibility of being sued some "fantisillian" dollars.
That cost enormous amounts of money, but insurance companies
are reinsured world wide. So when someone sue a firm 1000000
billion dollars in US and win, even my insurance payment here
in Norway increases to cover the loss. :-( Eg. 11. september
cost me many NOK :-(

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:59:00 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:59:23 GMT, GMCarter
><fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Yes, it does--that's what I was talking about. And
>>STILL....R&D costs, though, as a TOTAL expenditure of pharma
>>is relatively low. Those costs can further be reined in
>>(particularly if the egregious practice of shovelling
>>various marketing costs under "development" is stopped).
>
>What about insurance against failed experiments, where one or
>a couple test persons die.

What about it?

>Since there is no upper limits for what you may sue them for,
>such R&D must scale the insurance for the possibility of
>being sued some "fantisillian" dollars.

Not really. People in clinical studies are given an informed
consent. If it is a potentially fatal disease, they could
die--but I have NEVER heard of a company or government being
sued for a death during a clinical study.

The possible exception was a recent gene therapy study, but
I think even then, there was no lawsuit brought as there
was no case.

>That cost enormous amounts of money, but insurance companies
>are reinsured world wide. So when someone sue a firm 1000000
>billion dollars in US and win, even my insurance payment here
>in Norway increases to cover the loss. :-( Eg. 11. september
>cost me many NOK :-(

The costs arising from lawsuits are MINISCULE as a part of
costs of care. It's when an approved drug gets yanked and
class action suits arise that the fecal matter hits the fan.
And none of that is associated with R&D (except to the extent
that had a company DONE the phase IV study as promised, they
might have discovered the cardiac risk, etc.).

George M. Carter

[Happy Dog]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in
>>
>>> (And goes to the point that Happy mutt made about gee,
>>> RCTs are cheap...uh-huh...sure....)
>>
>>Hey Carter. Quit mis-staing my position. Show me where I
>>said that RCTs are cheap or withdraw that remark.
>
> Google is your friend.
>
> I withdraw no remarks.

That's just lame. You accuse me of an idiotic blanket
statement and, when I ask for evidence, you tell me to find it
myself. Actually enjoyed the conversation until now.

moo

[David Wrig]

In article <h2dp61p41s9rsh8sl8ijfnm1njeom1ou7e@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:27:24 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>(David Wright) wrote:
>
>>In article <p31o619ddcghr6vqmr39n68h0m10rum7fj@4ax.com>,
>>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:10:41 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>>>(David Wright) wrote:
>>>
>Seriously, I was just commenting more on the fact that
>SOMETIMES me-too drugs are an OK thing from a medical
>perspective. E.g., people on antiretroviral therapy have
>pretty restricted options in terms of statins due to
>drug-drug interactions and had there been only one in that
>class, there would be no other STATIN options. (There are,
>however, some very interesting other options that may be
>safer and as effective, while managing a wider range of lipid
>dyscrasias.)

I'm not at all against having alternative medications in many
cases, especially when most of them have a raft of side
effects, and often don't work well for a significant number of
people (antidepressants come to mind here also). But
eventually, we hit the point of diminishing returns.

>>>Or physicians?
>>
>> Maybe. But we also keep hearing about how the pharm
>> companies manipulate the data, advertise, blah blah blah,
>> so are the physicians getting the straight dope?
>
>Probably not! And given the kind of patter the legions of
>fresh-scrubbed PR reps, it is very doubtful...but SOME docs
>apparently like all the pens, notepads and trips to
>Hawaii....

Few people get the latter. It's mostly the pens and notepads.
If my doc can be bought by a notepad, something is very wrong.

>>>Overall, profits WAY exceed R&D costs.
>>
>>R&D costs are not the only costs.
>
>They're the most pertinent ones--and indeed, "R&D" has often
>been bloated to include marketing (shovelled inappropriately
>under the umbrella of "devleopment").

As I already agreed, the ROI of the pharms is the best of all
industries. I think it's around 12%; whoever is in second
place is around 10%.

>>>Actually, I think an interlocking set of changes are
>>>essential, including:
>>>
>>>1) Price controls on drugs, diagnostics, devices;
>>>2) Patent reform;
>>
>>Meaning?
>
>A good and rather complex question I don't have the answer
>to. But it could range from tweaking current patent law (and
>expanding the US Patent Office to have more expert and
>sharper reviewers who don't just grant patents willy nilly
>but actually check things like prior art and novelty as well
>as scope to outright eliminating patents).

I've got an axe to grind my own self on software patents, an
abomination that should never have been allowed. But better
examinations would help.

>>>These, in toto, will vastly alleviate the suffering and
>>>death the current system causes as well as being fiscally
>>>being more responsible--we could undoubtedly reduce the
>>>portion of the GDP utilized for healthcare from 15% or more
>>>to about 9-10% or possibly less--and cover everyone.
>>
>>I thought it was more like 10% already? Anyway, the single
>>biggest things you could do would be the single-payer and
>>allowing that payer to negotiate prices with the drug
>>companies.
>
>No way! And current projections suggest it may rise to as
>high as 24% by 2012:

When you say "no way" do you mean I'm wrong or that you don't
expect it to happen? (I'm guessing the latter, especially with
the crew of plutocratic scumbags the GOP has in power right
now. Talk about a traditional group -- they're taking us right
back to the days of the trusts in the 1890s.)

>>I disagree on the price controls. Those are a nightmare to
>>administer and may well not work because of that.
>
>Oh, utter nonsense. Most industrialized countries around the
>world have price controls. The VA negotiates sharply for
>good pricing.

Negotiations and price controls aren't the same thing. Price
controls are what Nixon tried to impose.

>>>"Prescription Drug Spending Still Outpacing Other Sectors
>>
>>Yep.
>
>I wonder also if that 10% is just out of hospital expenses as
>opposed to drug costs for in-patient care?

I think it's for all prescription drugs, however prescribed.

>>>>Nothing, really. In fact, it shows the value of DBPC
>>>>trials. The original homeopathic pharmacopia was created
>>>>with trials that were anything *but* double-blind.
>>>
>>>LOL...It was created before people even really THOUGHT
>>>about DB or PC!
>>
>>I know, it was a couple of hundred years ago. Very little
>>has changed since then, which is another indication that
>>you're dealing with religion here, not science.
>
>You could say that about allopathic medicine or ANY
>medicine. Most therapies currently are NOT prescribed based
>on DBPC data.

No, but you can't do double-blind studies of some approaches.
However, over 75% of current therapies have undergone testing
of some sort. (That citation of "less than half" from some
1978 OTA report is hopelessly out of date now.)

>That doesn't mean they don't work. Of course, that argument
>doesn't mean homeopathy DOES work either. It's just a poor
>argument.

The lack of striking, way-above-placebo success from
homeopathy is still damning. I mean, after all this time.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff
loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of
the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that
conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)

[Gmcarter]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 03:26:51 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
(David Wright) wrote:

>In article <h2dp61p41s9rsh8sl8ijfnm1njeom1ou7e@4ax.com>,
>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:27:24 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>>(David Wright) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <p31o619ddcghr6vqmr39n68h0m10rum7fj@4ax.com>,
>>>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:10:41 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>>>>(David Wright) wrote:
>>>>
>>Seriously, I was just commenting more on the fact that
>>SOMETIMES me-too drugs are an OK thing from a medical
>>perspective. E.g., people on antiretroviral therapy have
>>pretty restricted options in terms of statins due to
>>drug-drug interactions and had there been only one in that
>>class, there would be no other STATIN options. (There are,
>>however, some very interesting other options that may be
>>safer and as effective, while managing a wider range of
>>lipid dyscrasias.)
>
>I'm not at all against having alternative medications in many
>cases, especially when most of them have a raft of side
>effects, and often don't work well for a significant number
>of people (antidepressants come to mind here also). But
>eventually, we hit the point of diminishing returns.

I agree. And/or desperation may wind up getting more toxic
crap shoved onto the market (Crestor, potentially, as an
example--and there have been a couple of others).

>>>>Or physicians?
>>>
>>> Maybe. But we also keep hearing about how the pharm
>>> companies manipulate the data, advertise, blah blah blah,
>>> so are the physicians getting the straight dope?
>>
>>Probably not! And given the kind of patter the legions of
>>fresh-scrubbed PR reps, it is very doubtful...but SOME docs
>>apparently like all the pens, notepads and trips to
>>Hawaii....
>
>Few people get the latter. It's mostly the pens and
>notepads. If my doc can be bought by a notepad, something is
>very wrong.

Actually, this is a fairly widespread and rather serious
problem. I have a whole set of citations on how prescribing
patterns are altered by things ranging from the relatively
benign if excessively aggressive PR efforts to lavish
conferences to outright kickback schemes for numbers
prescribed.

>>>>Overall, profits WAY exceed R&D costs.
>>>
>>>R&D costs are not the only costs.
>>
>>They're the most pertinent ones--and indeed, "R&D" has often
>>been bloated to include marketing (shovelled inappropriately
>>under the umbrella of "devleopment").
>
>As I already agreed, the ROI of the pharms is the best of all
>industries. I think it's around 12%; whoever is in second
>place is around 10%.

I know there are cites for this out there....don't have time
to dig 'em up right now to verify.

>>>>Actually, I think an interlocking set of changes are
>>>>essential, including:
>>>>
>>>>1) Price controls on drugs, diagnostics, devices;
>>>>2) Patent reform;
>>>
>>>Meaning?
>>
>>A good and rather complex question I don't have the answer
>>to. But it could range from tweaking current patent law (and
>>expanding the US Patent Office to have more expert and
>>sharper reviewers who don't just grant patents willy nilly
>>but actually check things like prior art and novelty as well
>>as scope to outright eliminating patents).
>
>I've got an axe to grind my own self on software patents, an
>abomination that should never have been allowed. But better
>examinations would help.

Be nice if our legislators had the sense god gave a gnat to
see that!! LOL...but neither party seems to have a clue.

>>>>These, in toto, will vastly alleviate the suffering and
>>>>death the current system causes as well as being fiscally
>>>>being more responsible--we could undoubtedly reduce the
>>>>portion of the GDP utilized for healthcare from 15% or
>>>>more to about 9-10% or possibly less--and cover everyone.
>>>
>>>I thought it was more like 10% already? Anyway, the single
>>>biggest things you could do would be the single-payer and
>>>allowing that payer to negotiate prices with the drug
>>>companies.
>>
>>No way! And current projections suggest it may rise to as
>>high as 24% by 2012:
>
>When you say "no way" do you mean I'm wrong or that you don't
>expect it to happen? (I'm guessing the latter, especially
>with the crew of plutocratic scumbags the GOP has in power
>right now. Talk about a traditional group -- they're taking
>us right back to the days of the trusts in the 1890s.)

Galbraith, I hear on NPR, would suggest 15th c.

Actually, I meant "no way" that it's only 10% of GDP...but I
agree with all the rest...except....

>>>I disagree on the price controls. Those are a nightmare to
>>>administer and may well not work because of that.
>>
>>Oh, utter nonsense. Most industrialized countries around the
>>world have price controls. The VA negotiates sharply for
>>good pricing.
>
>Negotiations and price controls aren't the same thing. Price
>controls are what Nixon tried to impose.

Correct and I think price controls are correct. Not everything
Nixon did was horrible...he was a weird mix, so ascribing an
approach to him doesn't nullify it, obviously.

There are numerous schemes for price controls that can be
explored and adopted--and ultimately, it does require a
certain degree of negotiation.

But the industry is so fiercely avaricious, they even
effectively blocked "negotiations" in the form of CRADAs--that
is, when we pay for clinical studies via NIH and the drug gets
licensed to a company, the CRADA kicks in to inhibit gouging.

Nope. They wanna gouge.

>>>>"Prescription Drug Spending Still Outpacing Other Sectors
>>>
>>>Yep.
>>
>>I wonder also if that 10% is just out of hospital expenses
>>as opposed to drug costs for in-patient care?
>
>I think it's for all prescription drugs, however prescribed.

Be interesting to look into.

>>>>>Nothing, really. In fact, it shows the value of DBPC
>>>>>trials. The original homeopathic pharmacopia was created
>>>>>with trials that were anything *but* double-blind.
>>>>
>>>>LOL...It was created before people even really THOUGHT
>>>>about DB or PC!
>>>
>>>I know, it was a couple of hundred years ago. Very little
>>>has changed since then, which is another indication that
>>>you're dealing with religion here, not science.
>>
>>You could say that about allopathic medicine or ANY
>>medicine. Most therapies currently are NOT prescribed based
>>on DBPC data.
>
>No, but you can't do double-blind studies of some approaches.
>However, over 75% of current therapies have undergone testing
>of some sort. (That citation of "less than half" from some
>1978 OTA report is hopelessly out of date now.)

I think there is a more recent cite--a friend at Mount Sinai
has the info--I'll see if I can get the data. Do you have a
citation for the 75% and what "some sort" of testing means? I
mean, just because they ran an LD50 or a drug was studied for
one indication, I think there is still a HUGE amount of
off-label prescribing.

>>That doesn't mean they don't work. Of course, that argument
>>doesn't mean homeopathy DOES work either. It's just a poor
>>argument.
>
>The lack of striking, way-above-placebo success from
>homeopathy is still damning. I mean, after all this time.

I understand your interpretation--but some of the studies were
statistically significant compared to placebo--how much "way
above" is needed in those cases?

Anyway, I've got a head cold and I'm not using the homeopathic
stuff--but a lot of other stuff that I think is significantly
diminishing the severity and possibly duration. Yet another
experiment!

George M. Carter

[David Wrig]

In article <jke171l5jouqv11plcq99n001vgh3rk6a8@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 03:26:51 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net
>(David Wright) wrote:
>
>>In article <h2dp61p41s9rsh8sl8ijfnm1njeom1ou7e@4ax.com>,
>>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>>I disagree on the price controls. Those are a nightmare to
>>>>administer and may well not work because of that.
>>>
>>>Oh, utter nonsense. Most industrialized countries around
>>>the world have price controls. The VA negotiates sharply
>>>for good pricing.
>>
>>Negotiations and price controls aren't the same thing. Price
>>controls are what Nixon tried to impose.
>
>Correct and I think price controls are correct. Not
>everything Nixon did was horrible...he was a weird mix, so
>ascribing an approach to him doesn't nullify it, obviously.

I wasn't implying that. But price controls either have to be
permanent, or eventually you take them off and prices shoot
up. I'd prefer to see the gov't able to negotiate prices for
Medicare, otherwise the insane drug benefit Congress passed
will bankrupt us.

>But the industry is so fiercely avaricious, they even
>effectively blocked "negotiations" in the form of
>CRADAs--that is, when we pay for clinical studies via NIH and
>the drug gets licensed to a company, the CRADA kicks in to
>inhibit gouging.
>
>Nope. They wanna gouge.

Of course they do. They're capitalists. But we need to
restrain their enthusiasm for profit.

>>>You could say that about allopathic medicine or ANY
>>>medicine. Most therapies currently are NOT prescribed based
>>>on DBPC data.
>>
>>No, but you can't do double-blind studies of some
>>approaches. However, over 75% of current therapies have
>>undergone testing of some sort. (That citation of "less
>>than half" from some 1978 OTA report is hopelessly out of
>>date now.)
>
>I think there is a more recent cite--a friend at Mount Sinai
>has the info--I'll see if I can get the data. Do you have a
>citation for the 75% and what "some sort" of testing means? I
>mean, just because they ran an LD50 or a drug was studied for
>one indication, I think there is still a HUGE amount of
>off-label prescribing.

I was thinking more in terms of testing overall. You can't do
double- blind testing on things like surgery, but there are
side-by-side tests of many things where DB isn't practical,
for example.

>>>That doesn't mean they don't work. Of course, that argument
>>>doesn't mean homeopathy DOES work either. It's just a poor
>>>argument.
>>
>>The lack of striking, way-above-placebo success from
>>homeopathy is still damning. I mean, after all this time.
>
>I understand your interpretation--but some of the studies
>were statistically significant compared to placebo--how much
>"way above" is needed in those cases?

But a few "statistically significant" results is still in line
with random chance, given the usual 95% confidence levels.

>Anyway, I've got a head cold and I'm not using the
>homeopathic stuff--but a lot of other stuff that I think is
>significantly diminishing the severity and possibly duration.
>Yet another experiment!

I used Cold-eze for the cold I developed on Tuesday. Don't
know whether it helped me or not. It's "homeopathic," but not
12C-type homeopathic.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "His staff
loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the meaning of
the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all that
conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)

[Happy Dog]

"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message

> I used Cold-eze for the cold I developed on Tuesday. Don't
> know whether it helped me or not. It's "homeopathic," but
> not 12C-type homeopathic.

Has anyone tried Cold-FX? I used it this winter past and I got
the worst cold I've had in years. (I let myself get run down
though and I suspect that's part of the reason.) It's
expensive but they had a very positive study done on it.
http://www.cvtechnologies.com/coldfx/default.aspx

moo

[Tech27]

"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6kBee.9461$VL3.714970@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>
>> I used Cold-eze for the cold I developed on Tuesday. Don't
>> know whether it helped me or not. It's "homeopathic," but
>> not 12C-type homeopathic.
>
> Has anyone tried Cold-FX? I used it this winter past and I
> got the worst cold I've had in years. (I let myself get run
> down though and I suspect that's part of the reason.) It's
> expensive but they had a very positive study done on it.
> http://www.cvtechnologies.com/coldfx/default.aspx
>
> moo

Well, if Don Cherry is pitching it that's proof enough for me!

[Happy Dog]

"tech27" <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com>
>>> I used Cold-eze for the cold I developed on Tuesday. Don't
>>> know whether it helped me or not. It's "homeopathic," but
>>> not 12C-type homeopathic.
>>
>> Has anyone tried Cold-FX? I used it this winter past and I
>> got the worst cold I've had in years. (I let myself get run
>> down though and I suspect that's part of the reason.) It's
>> expensive but they had a very positive study done on it.
>> http://www.cvtechnologies.com/coldfx/default.aspx
>>
> Well, if Don Cherry is pitching it that's proof enough for
> me!

I dunno. I tried Quiznos and felt incontinent and
constipated at the same time. He's just not on it without
Ron. And vice versa.

Le Guy de Rocket