The balance needs to be redressed in case everyone is left with the impression that complimentary medicine is all placebo effect for which there is no robust evidence. "Complementary therapies" is an unfortunate catch-all phrase that encompasses everything that does not fit the the western medical paradigm from crystals to acupuncture.Dawkins only mentioned acupuncture in passing - it would have been an inconvenient example.There is mounting evidence of its effectiveness in animal experimentation and clinical trials. Trial evidence for opioid-induced nausea shows it to be as good as any drug. Dawkins targeted homeopathy and dismissed it according to "recent meta analysis". I presume he is referring to a 2005 article in the Lancet which showed a weak positive effect but compared it's magnitude to matched studies of conventional therapies and concluded that the effect was all placebo.The methodology of this study has been questioned and Dawkins didn't mention the controversy in the medical press. He neglected to interview Dr David Reilly - a homeopathy sceptic who decided to try and blow homeopathy out of the water for his MD thesis. To Reilly's surprise his double blind placebo controlled crossover trial in hayfever showed significant effect and was published in the Lancet in 1986. He has repeated several more well conducted studies and is now based at the Glasgow homeopathic hospital.The Lancet also published a meta analysis of 186 placebo controlled trials in 1997 which gave an odds ratio of 2.45 (chances of benefit were 2.45 times greater with homeopahtic remedy than placebo). Dr Reilly is open to the idea that he may have discovered a consistent false positive quirk in trial methodology but he has not been able to pin this down. He stands by his trial evidence even though the mechanism of homeopathy is undefined and profoundly counter-intuitive. Dawkins gave us a prejudiced and shallow account of this debate. He talked about the anti-cancer drug Herceptin as if it "saves lives" - this is tabloid medical journalism. It prolongs lives - significantly and it deserves to be funded but why talk to a surgeon about it when it is oncologists who prescribe it? - the obvious answer is that the surgeon had strong opionions against complementary therapies which Dawkins wanted to air.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
...Homeopathy works...

Water.cannot.remember.stuff.
If.it.did.it.would.remember.all.the.other.stuff.that.was.once.disolved.in.it.
The.theory.is.b.o.l.l.o.c.k.s.

quote:

Water.cannot.remember.stuff.
If.it.did.it.would.remember.all.the.other.stuff.that.was.once.disolved.in.it.
The.theory.is.b.o.l.l.o.c.k.s.

Blast - As I said - profoudly counter-inuitive. What distinguishes a homeopathic remedy from a solution of miscellaneous drugs, chemicals and bodily waste products that has been shaken up and then diluted by Thames water? I'm just pointing out that there is some well conducted empirical evidence that it has effect - probably not enough to justify nhs funding as Dawkins rightly pointed out but you can't ask for evidence and then ignore it.
Misc facts:

20% of Scottish GP's have a basic homeopathy qualification

Vets use homeopathy quite extensively and then are positive trials on mastitis in cows (not very good quality studies)

Annoyingly, many of my ailments clear up just after I make an appointment and just before I visit my doctor. I wonder how that happens? Must be prescient, at-a-distance, telepathic homeopathy?

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:
Annoyingly, many of my ailments clear up just after I make an appointment and just before I visit my doctor. I wonder how that happens? Must be prescient, at-a-distance, telepathic homeopathy?

The government have been secretly investing in inverse-causality drugs. When you phone your doctors, a doctor will have later in that day proscribed you an anti-causality drug that utilises quantum wave functions in the light-memory of the higher-perception seventh dimension. This sets up a collapsed DNA-repair wave that travels back in time to when you phoned that induces vibrations in a crystal hidden in your phone that in turn tunes your body back to health.

One unfortunate side-affect of this though is that a time dilation loop exists within your doctors' surgery. This time dilation loop means that no matter how early you are for an appointment, there will always be people in front of you and a half-hour delay in seeing your doctor, but if you are 1 picosecond late, your slot will have passed and you have to rebook for the next dat.

I have researched this subject and just because the evidence cannot be seen, doesn't mean it doesn't exist and if one thinks about it hard enough, its obviously true and if you disagree, you need to think more and stop being so closed-minded.

ho, ho, ho.
Very good, you have convinced me.

greenbelt, I think I can see what you're thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by LuisGarcia:
greenbelt, I think I can see what you're thinking.

Even the atheists are turning psychic.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Dawkins only mentioned acupuncture in passing - it would have been an inconvenient example.There is mounting evidence of its effectiveness in animal experimentation and clinical trials.

I dont know anything about homeopathy, but the fact that there is so sound theory to even begin to explain it raises considerable doubts. If these tests are true as you state then it deserves further investigation.
..but onto the above quote. As I understand it, acupuncture has been shown to lessen pain - to a significant degree - so much so that operations are done without anesthetic..
However, let us not forget that traditional acupuncturists claim far more effects and claim that the flow of chi can be freed and helps cure all sorts of ailments. Trials do not support these claims.

You forget though that science is not about putting labels on things and simply accepting or denying them wholesale. Science WILL accept things which can be evidenced properly.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:

Some drivel about Homeopathy being valid.

Yeah, Homeopathy works but only in very poor quality trials which are virtually meaningless.

Here are some references for you to read before you make any more silly statements and quoting of misleading stats in order to get "Evidence for".

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAEB6.htm

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band45/b45-2.html#Heading2

http://skepdic.com/homeo.html

http://www.clinicalevidence.com/ceweb/conditions/skd/1710/1710_I6.jsp

http://www.ebm-first.com/?cat=38

http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk/prescrire/

http://www.clinicalevidence.com/ceweb/conditions/msd/1101/1101_I4.jsp

And the hundreds more out there that show HR is nothing more than a money spinner for New Age Quacks.

quote:

Originally posted by Ape Man:
The government have been secretly investing in inverse-causality drugs.

I thought it might be something very non-mainstream like that. Simply wouldn't be worth believing in if it didn't sound a bit wer. Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Dr David Reilly - a homeopathy sceptic

Hardly a very truthful statement given his advocacy of the subject. He is an out and out proponent of Homeopathy. He has made videos and conducts presentations in favour of HR. His post as lead consultant at the Homeopathy Hospital should also tell you where his bias lies.

I think the point was that he was a skeptic until the first trials he attempted, as explained above.

But really, the majority of you here, and on the other threads abotut this show, are as arrogant as Dawkins. It just goes to prove a point really. I wonder if that's an imbalance of qi...

quote:

Originally posted by Scubadubadu:
But really, the majority of you here, and on the other threads abotut this show, are as arrogant as Dawkins. It just goes to prove a point really.

It sure does prove a point: that point being that you have a tendency to accuse people, who are sceptical of your beliefs, of being arrogant.

quote:

Originally posted by Scubadubadu:
I think the point was that he was a skeptic until the first trials he attempted, as explained above.

The fact is that for every trial (even some decent ones) which do show slightly above average effect for an alternative treatment there are many, many, more which don't produce the same result. Why is that then, if an effect truly exists then surely it must be consistantly replicable - If not then it suggests experimental error or flaw.

So he did an experiment and changed his POV from sceptical to convinced advocate. Big deal - unless his results can be consistantly duplicated (which they cannot) then he is not really that good a scientist nor is the causal effect proven.

quote:

But really, the majority of you here, and on the other threads abotut this show, are as arrogant as Dawkins. It just goes to prove a point really. I wonder if that's an imbalance of qi...

Fine I can live with that. Being arrogant in ones argument when that arrogance is based on the knowledge gained from real evidence is far better than showing ones ignorance and stupidity by supporting ideas which have no (or scant and dubious) evidence to support them.

quote:

Originally posted by Scubadubadu:
I wonder if that's an imbalance of qi...

qi?

WTF is qi?

Is it a pretend madey-uppy thing...

quote:

Originally posted by blade runner:

quote:

Originally posted by Scubadubadu:
I wonder if that's an imbalance of qi...

qi?

WTF is qi?

Is it a pretend madey-uppy thing...

I think it is a bit like quiche; just shorter and easier to balance.

quote:

Originally posted by Scubadubadu:
I think the point was that he was a skeptic until the first trials he attempted, as explained above.

But really, the majority of you here, and on the other threads abotut this show, are as arrogant as Dawkins. It just goes to prove a point really. I wonder if that's an imbalance of qi...

LOL!

Arrogance == not believing what YOU believe?

Oops, there goes another irony meter.

I didn't say you should believe what I believe, and at no point did I say what I personally believe about these therapies. You assume because I defend open-mindedness I susbscribe to all these beliefs, which is not the case.

I'm just amazed at how quickly things are dismissed by people here, when they clearly have no knowldge/understanding of them. But I suppose some see these forums as a way of getting a rise out of folk and nothing more.

quote:

Originally posted by Scubadubadu:
I didn't say you should believe what I believe, and at no point did I say what I personally believe about these therapies. You assume because I defend open-mindedness I susbscribe to all these beliefs, which is not the case.

I'm just amazed at how quickly things are dismissed by people here, when they clearly have no knowldge/understanding of them. But I suppose some see these forums as a way of getting a rise out of folk and nothing more.

Hmmm, isn't it arrogant of you to assume that we have no knowledge or understanding of the subject being discussed and their lack of supporting evidence.

Speaking only for myself I discount these ideas because they have little or no merit. Greenbelt started off this topic by selectively quoting some studies which show a bias to his preferred belief in an alternate medicine - of course he failed to mention that there are many, many, other good and larger studies which homeopathy has failed to work in. The governing body of Homeopathy has often even given excuses before the outcome of trials for why they don't expect any positive outcome. So much for their own trust in their claims to supposed effectiveness.

quote:

Originally posted by Scubadubadu:
I'm just amazed at how quickly things are dismissed by people here, when they clearly have no knowldge/understanding of them.

How incredibly arrogant of you to assume we have no knowledge or understanding of the things we dismiss!

quote:

Originally posted by Scubadubadu:
[quote]But I suppose some see these forums as a way of getting a rise out of folk and nothing more.

Isn't that what you came onto the thread for? Can't see any point to your posts otherwise.

Perhaps your quiche is out of balance too?

quote:

Originally posted by Scubadubadu:
I didn't say you should believe what I believe, and at no point did I say what I personally believe about these therapies. You assume because I defend open-mindedness I susbscribe to all these beliefs, which is not the case.

I'm just amazed at how quickly things are dismissed by people here, when they clearly have no knowldge/understanding of them. But I suppose some see these forums as a way of getting a rise out of folk and nothing more.

The definition of open-mindedness is "letting the evidence do the talking". The evidence says "no". Game Over.

Originally posted by Joobs.. (I can sense one of your sociopathic outbursts coming on)

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by greenbelt:

Some drivel about Homeopathy being valid.



Yeah, Homeopathy works but only in very poor quality trials which are virtually meaningless.

Here are some references for you to read before you make any more silly statements and quoting of misleading stats in order to get "Evidence for".

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAEB6.htm

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band45/b45-2.html#Heading2

http://skepdic.com/homeo.html

http://www.clinicalevidence.com/ceweb/conditions/skd/1710/1710_I6.jsp

http://www.ebm-first.com/?cat=38

http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk/prescrire/

http://www.clinicalevidence.com/ceweb/conditions/msd/1101/1101_I4.jsp

And the hund