Homeopathy: Effective questioning the US

How to stay healthy and prevent risks and consequences on your health and public health. occupational disease, industrial risks (asbestos, air pollution, electromagnetic waves ...), company risk (workplace stress, overuse of drugs ...) and individual (tobacco, alcohol ...).
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Homeopathy: Effective questioning the US




by Janic » 11/02/17, 09:12

janic wrote: Bad example! The butcher is a specialist in the cutting product, not in dietetics. So unless the latter has studied dietetics and he will have the skills, otherwise he will only repeat the brainwashing of industrialists.

You always reduce everything to conflicts of interest.

It seems to me that it is the independent media (like duck chained or consumer associations) who have noted these conflicts of interest and it is the State which has taken measures to avoid them (or at least reduce them)
This logic also applies to homeo.

Absolutely ! There is no sector who is exempt from it.
janic wrote: Scientific studies, as you say, depend on who will do them and by what criteria chosen. Thus, a cardiology surgeon will generally not have the skills of a proctologist whose "scientific studies" are not adaptable to the other specialty and similarly it is better not to call on the latter for cardiac surgery. both being graduates of medical school). So "everyone has their job and the cows will be well kept"

Fortunately, science is not as compartmentalized as you imagine ...

Try to have an "open-ended science" butcher operate on you!
Now, and I repeat it constantly, there is no LA science as there is LE god, but multitudes of sciences which are not limited, fortunately, to the materialistic sciences and, whatever you like, H. is one of the sciences in question not compartmentalized since it is practiced by doctors with degrees in allopathy and homeopathy. Which gives them an advantage over A. closed in on itself.
anecdotally, it recalls the dogmatic and dominant Catholic religion, which refused and fought Protestantism questioning its exclusivist position. Secularism, which we recommend, would probably never have existed without this questioning of the dominant systems.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
pedrodelavega
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3791
Registration: 09/03/13, 21:02
x 1311

Re: Homeopathy: Effective questioning the US




by pedrodelavega » 11/02/17, 12:20

Janic wrote:H. is one of those sciences
No homeopathy is a pseudoscience because it has not proven its effectiveness in the scientific sense (which is not satisfied with only personal experiences) and these principles are based on postulates invented 2 centuries ago and never demonstrated.

Une nouvelle science academy just concluded like most other scientific organizations on this subject:

https://www.lecourrierderussie.com/societe/2017/02/homeopathie-pseudo-science-academie-russe/ : Arrowd:

The commission in charge of the fight against pseudo-science at the Russian Academy of Sciences declared that "the administration in extremely low doses" of homeopathic medicines had no "scientific basis or justification".

"Explanations of the supposed effects of homeopathy contravene known chemical, physical and biological laws, and its effectiveness is not supported by any convincing experimentation"

The document also specifies that the principles of homeopathy are only “speculative” dogmas dating back to the “protoscientific stage of development of physiology and medicine ". "Homeopathy appeared at a time when the most important representations of chemistry and biology on the properties of molecules (…) were not yet generally accepted. Some researchers believed that matter was infinitely divisible and, therefore, it made sense for them to speak of dilution at any level. ”
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Homeopathy: Effective questioning the US




by Janic » 11/02/17, 15:37

H. is one of those sciences

No, homeopathy is a pseudo-science because it has not proven its effectiveness in the scientific sense (which is not satisfied with only personal experiences) and these principles are based on postulates invented 2 centuries ago and never demonstrated.
and the scratched disc went away.
http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/science
SCIENCE, noun. fem.
I. - Liter. or aged, sing. Sum of knowledge that an individual has or can acquire through study, reflection or experience.
A. - Thorough knowledge of things in what they are. Synon. savoir2.

what do you want, i can't help it if your perception of the word science is so limited.
A new academy of sciences has just concluded like most other scientific organizations on this subject:
It is up to the Russians to harmonize its various services and, for the moment, the Ministry of Health does not follow the point of view of the academy in question.
like most other scientific organizations

It does not seem that the French Academy of Sciences has issued a positive or negative opinion on homeopathy. So we find, depending on the country, researchers favorable to H and others opposed. It's life !
The Academy of Sciences, named the Royal Academy of Sciences when it was created in 1666, is one of the five academies grouped together within the Institut de France and made up of 262 members including 28 women1 in March 2016. It encourages and protects the spirit of research, and contributes to scientific progress and their applications.
It seems that the application has been in progress for 2 centuries and has contributed to the progress of care. For researchers to find out why it works so well, but we are not in a hurry, the important thing is that it works in real life for the doctors and patients concerned! The rest is blabla due to ignorance!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Homeopathy: Effective questioning the US




by sen-no-sen » 11/02/17, 16:28

pedrodelavega wrote: No homeopathy is a pseudoscience because it has not proven its effectiveness in the scientific sense (which is not satisfied with only personal experiences) and these principles are based on postulates invented 2 centuries ago and never demonstrated.


Beware of the use of terms.
If homeopathy does not respond to current scientific criteria concerning its mode of operation, it does not prevent that, empirically, homeopathy demonstrates a certain practical effectiveness, mainly on chronic ailments.
It is on the other hand of little effectiveness on the diseases of acute type (like nasopharyngitis, etc ...) and in the medical medium are use is far from being regarded as a scam.

Frankly if a guy without a diploma who would have won 3 times in the lotto kitty explained to you that it is possible to win the lotto (simple example), and that on the other a scientist full of diplomas explains to you by a + b that it is not possible who would you listen to? : Cheesy:
Science is something very empirical, so sometimes you have to put aside the notion of logic or "reason".

However wanting to oppose pharmacochemistry and homeopathy to replace one with the other is a strictly ideological positioning, homeopathy is not intended to replace natural or synthetic substances but to offer a different approach on certain types of ailments .
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Homeopathy: Effective questioning the US




by Janic » 11/02/17, 17:31

90% agree except:
It is on the other hand of little effectiveness on the diseases of acute type (like nasopharyngitis, etc ...)

Unfortunately, this presumption is as hard as saying that H is a pseudo science.
For this, we must distinguish the uniqueness which only practices H. Semmelweiss way, multi-homeopathy (the most common) and H. practiced by doctors who know very little about H. and who prescribe it like the rest of their products (because it can't hurt). We must therefore be clear about which category we are talking about.
So, I said it again and again (rather quoted and recited) the H is of holistic type, not by pathology as in A. therefore it is not a rhino which is going to be "treated" but the totality of the individual and by remedies seemingly unrelated to this pathology.
To understand this, I use this simple but explicit comparison. If you inflate an inner tube outside the tire, after a while a bladder will form. Why there ? Simply because this is where the rubber is most fragile, if you coat this bladder with straps and continue to inflate it will form another further and so on. What we see in all cases of illness. The wisdom is to drop the pressure to the point where no bladder will form. In holistic medicine it is the reasoning held: reduce the pressure by various medicinal or simply hygienic means, it is therefore a synergy between the product used (H or A or plants and other non-limiting means ) and the patient, which is why products go everywhere can be both effective and ineffective.

However wanting to oppose pharmacochemistry and homeopathy to replace one with the other is a strictly ideological positioning, homeopathy is not intended to replace natural or synthetic substances but to offer a different approach on certain types of ailments .

Absolutely ! No medicine has the answer to all situations, otherwise all diseases would have been eradicated long ago which is clearly not the case. A nuance however and of size, the H does not present any character of toxicity and which should (with other means of the same kind) be used in priority according to the maxim of Hippocrates: non-nocturnal primum And reserve A for extreme cases where others would not have had the expected effectiveness.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
pedrodelavega
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3791
Registration: 09/03/13, 21:02
x 1311

Re: Homeopathy: Effective questioning the US




by pedrodelavega » 11/02/17, 21:32

Janic wrote:what do you want, i can't help it if your perception of the word science is so limited.
Perhaps it is you who has too broad a vision.
"We do science with facts, as is a house with stones, but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

Janic wrote:It is up to the Russians to harmonize its various services and, for the moment, the Ministry of Health does not follow the point of view of the academy in question.
Unfortunately, legislation does not always follow science ...

Janic wrote:It does not seem that the French Academy of Sciences has issued a positive or negative opinion on homeopathy. So we find, depending on the country, researchers favorable to H and others opposed. It's life !
Researchers favorable to homeopathy are rare. On this subject, the scientific consensus is now broad because for 200 years, the many advances in science tend rather to refute the hypotheses put forward by Samuel Hahnemann (discovery and experiments on the placebo effect for example)

https://www.surlatoile.com/discussion/1 ... omeopathie : Arrowd:
"The French Academy of Medicine has recommended that the government no longer reimburse homeopathic treatments whose effectiveness is not proven.
"(...) To date, no proof of the functioning of homeopathy could be provided. Note that James Randi offers a million dollars to anyone who will be able to prove that homeopathy really works. A BBC team and some homeopaths convinced had tried the experiment in 2002, without success. "

https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/sante/l ... ucre_28730 : Arrowd:
"Homeopathy is useless. This is in essence the conclusion of a vast report made public at the beginning of March 2015 and produced by the largest research organization in Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). "

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article886 : Arrowd:
"(...)The first attempt at therapeutic trial bringing together, it seems, a methodology satisfactory for the time, was carried out under the Third Reich. Indeed, the "purity" and "return to nature" side of National Socialism had found in homeopathy a therapeutic measure. Rudolf Hess is in charge of Dr Fritz Donner, homeopath himself, to supervise a vast experiment which, let's be frank, wanted to be objective. The trials carried out on a large scale will be interrupted in 1939. After the war it is Fritz Donner himself who will collect and summarize the results. He will write, let us quote, that "on failed to achieve any success that we can credit the homeopathic method ... despite the efforts made. Of course, no homeopathic journal has agreed to publish this text."
"(...) The results of this test will be published in March 1988 in The Lancet. It consisted of testing the action of Opium and Raphanus on the restoration of intestinal transit after an intra-abdominal operation. It was chosen by homeopaths themselves following "remarkable" results published by Pr. Chevel (who is also part of the commission) in 1992 (Bobigny) and Pr. Aulagnier in 1993 (Vienne). Six hundred patients of twelve hospitals were divided into four groups, receiving respectively: opium + raphanus, opium + placebo, Two placebos and nothing (test group). The results showed no notable distinction between the four groups "
"(...) In 1987, following a controversy, the Academy of Medicine indicated that the prescription of homeopathic medicines" is only justified in pathological manifestations which heal spontaneously "."


Janic wrote:For researchers to find out why it works so well,
"Before understanding how ghosts go through walls, we must already prove that they are exiting!"


sen-no-sen wrote:Frankly if a guy without a diploma who would have won 3 times in the lotto kitty explained to you that it is possible to win the lotto (simple example), and that on the other a scientist full of diplomas explains to you by a + b that it is not possible who would you listen to?
Proving the value of your bank account is easily achievable, proving the effectiveness of therapy is a little more complicated. :|
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Homeopathy: Effective questioning the US




by sen-no-sen » 11/02/17, 22:22

pedrodelavega wrote:Proving the value of your bank account is easily achievable, proving the effectiveness of therapy is a little more complicated. :|


The facts demonstrate the opposite, to my knowledge there is no technique to win the lottery * or other games of chance (if you have a technique to become a millionaire with the lotto, send me a PM :D! ), on the contrary there are thousands of users of homeopathy, human and non-human (it also works on goats!), who are treated via homeopathy with convincing results.
I recently discussed this with my doctor (not a homeopath and a great user of antibiotics!) And he confirmed to me that homeopathy works well on certain types of pathologies, and his facts are confirmed empirically by a large number of them (I ask the question as soon as I see one or one).
Now I repeat, homeopathy does not have the capacity to replace pharmaco-chemistry, but can very well be used judiciously on certain chronic pathologies.


NB: I notice, by then on the web and its swarm of conspiratorial sites, the appearance of an opposite phenomenon, which is the resurgence of so-called "skeptical" sites.
Skepticism is the basic position that any serious investigator must have regarding information.
However, when I see the content of some of its sites that deal only with the harmless GMOs, pesticides, cell phone waves, glyphosate, I could allow myself to think that this is no longer "skepticism", but an insidious form of scientism taking the form of an attitude skeptical, which is not a objective attitude.
Because strangely I have not found a lot of articles of his so called skeptics on the shortcomings of our economy, belief systems, social engineering etc ... weird?

Conversely real skeptics as Susan Blackmore ou Richard Dawkins have produced much less obtuse work on many exciting phenomena.




* When I say winning, it means betting little and winning a lot.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
pedrodelavega
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3791
Registration: 09/03/13, 21:02
x 1311

Re: Homeopathy: Effective questioning the US




by pedrodelavega » 12/02/17, 00:51

sen-no-sen wrote:
pedrodelavega wrote:Proving the value of your bank account is easily achievable, proving the effectiveness of therapy is a little more complicated. :|
The facts demonstrate the opposite, to my knowledge there is no technique to win the lottery * or other games of chance
By my answer, I wanted to say: Before demonstrating a technique to win the lottery, you must prove that you have won (Before proving the principle of homeopathy, you must prove that it works). For the lotto it is easy, to prove a therapeutic effectiveness, it is more complicated.

sen-no-sen wrote:Conversely, there are thousands of users of homeopathy, human and non-human (it also works on goats!), who are treated via homeopathy with convincing results.
Unfortunately, there is nothing convincing in the scientific sense:
"We do science with facts, as is a house with stones, but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

sen-no-sen wrote:Conversely real skeptics as Susan Blackmore ou Richard Dawkins have produced much less obtuse work on many exciting phenomena.
Well the "real" skeptics say the same thing: : Arrowd:
https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/home ... -declares/
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/stat ... 05?lang=fr
http://www.scientificindians.com/health ... rd-dawkins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enemies_of_Reason
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Homeopathy: Effective questioning the US




by sen-no-sen » 12/02/17, 15:00



My side note was about "oriented skepticism" sites.

To come back to homeopathy it is indeed difficult to find theorists favorable to this one insofar as this therapy does not present a solvent explanation compared to the criteria in force.
However, in the medical profession, therefore in the field, those who observe the facts, we note a certain effectiveness.
As soon as it is necessary to privilege, the empirical method or the theoretical method?
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Homeopathy: Effective questioning the US




by Janic » 12/02/17, 17:36

sen no sen hello
Again, I share your point of view.
My side note was about "oriented skepticism" sites.

Like the skeptics of Quebec of which must be part, copy / paste, our opponent!
To come back to homeopathy it is indeed difficult to find theorists favorable to this one insofar as this therapy does not present a solvent explanation compared to the criteria in force.

All right ! It is like trying to demonstrate quantum mechanics with the reasoning of Newtonian physics.
However, in the medical profession, therefore in the field, those who observe the facts, we note a certain effectiveness.
As soon as it is necessary to privilege, the empirical method or the theoretical method?

Still agree! Between laboratory theorists and field practitioners, the latter largely prevail with the general public concerned
For the proposed sites
pedrodelavega wrote: Well the "real" skeptics say the same thing:
https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/home ... -declared /
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/stat ... 05? Lang = en
http://www.scientificindians.com/health ...rd-dawkins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enemies_of_Reason

Only one really deserves attention and it is: http://www.scientificindians.com/health ... rd-dawkins
which offers, finally, something really intelligent and concrete " Here is my experimental design. »In 6 points and could, indeed, be retained as a credible basis
(except comments that prejudge results, which, for a scientist, is contradictory in making a conclusion BEFORE the experiment) " My shirt is there, there is no difference. Indeed, if there is a significant difference, and it is a repeatable effect, I will eat my shirt. Hopefully his shirt is at least cotton, more digestible than synthetic.
Here are these 6 points:

Here is my experimental design.
Take a large predetermined number of patients, preferably who have come to homeopathic clinics and have been found suitable for treatment by homeopathic practitioners. They should not all suffer from the same complaint, although it will increase the resolving power of the experience if they are. Each patient should be examined before the experience begins, by homeopathic practitioners, the best of the profession can happen, who should write a report on the patient. For each patient, practitioners must agree on a prescription of what they see as the ideal homeopathic treatment. The prescriptions for different patients do not have to be the same. Each patient is written on prescription for an ideal homeopathic remedy, personally chosen, individually adapted to that person and for the relevant complaint - so that no one can come after and allege that the treatment was not sufficiently "holistic" , or did not take sufficient account of individual needs.
Randomly assign half of the patients to the experimental group and half to the control group. [*] It is of the utmost importance that no one is involved in the experiment to know which patients are experimental and who control: not the homeopathic practitioners, nor the patients, nor the nurses who care for them, nor person involved in writing the data. The choice must be determined at random by a computer, unknown to any human being, and stored securely on the computer.
For each of the prescriptions written for individual patients, the professional homeopathic technicians (the best in the business) must compose the drug in an identical manner for the experimental and control cases, with an identical sucussion regime (successive dilution and shaking) with the only Except that the procedure for preparing the experimental doses begins with the supposed active ingredient, while the control doses start with the same volume of water. Apart from that, both must be done by the same dilution regime and successive shakes. At all stages, procedures should be performed by homeopathic technicians with extensive training and experience, exactly as they would normally, but without knowing whether they are shaking the experimental or control dose on one occasion [*] [*]
At the end of the sucussion regimen, the technicians bottle up the medication, and make it into the pills or whatever the normal procedure is. Then, according to the randomization procedure above, each patient receives either the experimental version of his personal prescription or the control version of his personal prescription. Still neither the patient nor anyone else knows what dose is experimental and who controls it. Treatment continues as long as the homeopath has prescribed. [*] [*] [*]
At the end of this time, all patients are re-examined by the same practitioners who examined them before the experience, and judgment is written on whether the patient has improved, worsened, or stayed the same. This judgment, once written, is securely sealed so that it cannot be tampered with after the codes are broken.
The computer codes are now broken and the results analyzed by statisticians who are only told that this group of patients belongs to group A and that this set of patients belongs to group B. If there is a statistically significant difference between the groups, the identities of groups A and B can now be disclosed.

My shirt is there, there is no difference. Indeed, if there is a significant difference, and it is a repeatable effect, I will eat my shirt.


[*] there the pack begins to hurt! Do not divide the whole by two but by three by comparing for the same patients H, A and placebo and compare the results. We can therefore add an additional point such as having ALL the blind patients re-examined by the H and A who participated in the trial with the same process indicated above by Dawkins.
[*] [*] and therefore do the same for allopathic drugs, otherwise the two formulas already exist prepared.
[*] [*] [*] same thing for A, it goes without saying!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Google [Bot] and 256 guests