Your right - even when you're wrong

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy Lewis — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:23:40 GMT

Bryan, as a defender of homeopathy, you have yet again failed to understand your critics. The other possibility is that you are deliberately misrepresenting them. Which is it?

The critics of homeopathy are in no way trying to limit people's choice. What is happening here is that critics would like, as much as possible, for people's health choices to be fully informed.

There is much misinformation about homeopathy around. The people I meet generally believe that homeopathy is a type of herbalism. I am sure that homeopaths would agree with me that this is wrong. Homeopaths, however, rarely put people right. They talk of 'low doses of natural substances' rather the more usually correct 'no doses'. They pretend there is good evidence that homeopathy can do things for malaria rather than just shabby anecdotes and wishful thinking. They misrepresent the research - such as Linde and Shang - continuously. And they pretend that there new emerging sciences to support them - such as quantum mechanics and materials science.

I am quite happy for people to take homeopathic pills. But let that be in an environment where it is obvious that to believe in it you have to believe in mysterious life forces or other non-scientific things. Let people know that the sum of trials confirm that taking a homeopathic pill is the same as taking a blank sugar pill. They are chemically and physically identical. If the customer then swallows the pill then so be it. Universities pretending that homeopathy is worthy of a BSc is just lying to people - pure and simple. And so the closure of this course is one small step towards a more honest appraisal of homeopathy in society.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Jack of Kent — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:36:00 GMT

"But another SoE has been at the receiving end; Simon Singh, co-author of the recent book Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine On Trial, is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association over claims he makes about the therapy in the book."

This is factually incorrect. According to the Sunday telegraph, Dr Singh is being sued over a newspaper article in the Guardian. Not the book.

It is disappointing that you blog without establishing facts first. It makes you appear rather unreliable on all your other points.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

White rabbit — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:14:07 GMT

Well done Bryan for understanding what the skeptics think of themselves, the CAM practitioners, the CAM users, ad the general public.

Sons (and daughters) of Enlightment! Brilliant! They are a sect of their own and, as is usually the case with sects, dont even realise their madness.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

David Colquhoun — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:49:59 GMT

Oh I rather like that., What greater compliment than to be called a son of the enlightenment. A lot better, anyway that advocating endarkenment. The whole point of the age of enlightenment was that people started to use their eyes and their brains themselves, and so overcame dogma and mysticism. Sounds pretty good to me.

I do wish, though, that you wouldn't represent my views. As Andy Lewis has already said, I have never advocated banning of any sort of CAM. People should be free to spend their money however they want. I do draw the line at them spending my money though (via the NHS or via universities). And, being a pharmacologist by trade, I'm only too aware of the limitations of "powerful pharmaceuticals". For example, neither regular medicine nor quacks can do a great deal for back pain. I'd rather go for a walk in the country than be impaled by needles or take analgesics, I dare say it will work (or fail to work) just as well.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Ingrid of E.Yorkshire — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:38:29 GMT

I have been brought up with homeopathy and never missed conventional medicine, despite the fact that my son and his wife are GP's. I believe that conventional medicine has its place the same as homeopathy. I have lived to the ripe old age of 69 with no health problems, good heart, good BP etc and I put this down to the way I live and look after my system. In 35 yrs I have seen my GP twice. I take vitamins and minerals as I think I need and lo and behold I may be here for a little bit longer.Ingrid

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

James Pannozzi — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:55:47 GMT

Bryan Hubbard is absolutely correct. We are witnessing the emergence of a kind of medical totalitarianism in which the "Sons of "Enlightenment", I prefer the term "Quackers"

decide which evidence supports which medicine and then force us to follow the medical system which they have sanctified.

Homeopathy has massive clinical data in support of it and in recent decades has numerous double blinded placebo control studies showing clear benefit well above placebo. With researchers and practtioners such as Dr. Iris Bell MD, PhD, Dr. Vithoulkas, Dr. Robert Morrison and Dr. Andrew Saine, among many others, Homeopathy is most certainly a genuine and important system of medicine providing enormous benefit to millions.

Shall we shut down all of standard medicine because some folks' cold remedies didn't take

or because some people were KILLED by Vioxx??

Alternative medicine is thriving today because people are discovering that Acupuncture, Chinese Herbology, Homeopathy, Chiropractic and other systems often provide a complete cure, or relief from pain where standard medicine failed completely. The research is growing in favour of it and all the media attacks, popularized books and anti-scientific hysteria will STILL not prevent alternative medicine from assuming a position equal, if not superiour to the so called standard.

Search out "laughingmysocksoff" comments for a detailed refutation of, for example, Ben Goldacre's half truths and clever omissions of fact about Homeopathy and THEN decide.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

David Colquhoun — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:43:27 GMT

James Pannozzi. Perhaps you should ask yourself why I spend time on reading about subjects like homeopathy? Most of the people that I'm arguing with make their living at it, so it's hardly surprising that they defend it. For me it is just a distraction from my real scientific interests (the stochastic interpretation of single ion channel experiments0. I spend a lot of my time and a bit of my own money on it. The only reason for that is because it upsets me to see people misunderstanding evidence. It also upsets me to see people mistake wishful thinking for truth and and being defrauded on a massive scale. I will agree though, that their are more important forms of self-delusion than homeopathy -deluding oneself about WMD involves just the same mind set but results in a lot more deaths.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

A Little Aside — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:01:08 GMT

'Alternative medicine is thriving today because people are discovering that Acupuncture, Chinese Herbology, Homeopathy, Chiropractic and other systems often provide a complete cure, or relief from pain where standard medicine failed completely.'

Herbology teaches that you should take sizeable doses of plants containing active chemicals to treat illness. Homeopathy teaches that the less you take the better.

Chiropractic teaches that illness originates in the spine and is treated by manipulating it. Acupuncture teaches that illness originates in meridians that flow throughout the body, not just near the spine, and that you treat it by the insertion of small needles, not by manipulating the bones in the spine alone.

Can you please tell me - which is it?

And I'm afraid I think you've mislead yourself regarding the evidence for homeopathy.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Jack of Kent — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:11:00 GMT

A simple query for James Pannozzi or any other.

In what circumstances would they accept any allternative medicine to be invalid?

I ask because the following quotation expressly refers to the possibility that standard medicine can "fail". Accordingly, when (if at all) would alternative medicine fail?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy Lewis — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:26:59 GMT

Another logical fallacy that Brian commits is the false dichotomy. In the concluding paragraph we are presented with a stark choice "it's the difference between having either a belief in the State - which becomes the ultimate authority on everything we are allowed to have and experience in life - or the common-sense of the individual. "

But there are not just two choices. There is also the choice to believe in evidence and reason - science. Homeopaths appear to be unable to see truth as coming from anything other than some authority figure. That is why when presented with challenged to that authority they can only respond with attacks on people's motives.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

James Pannozzi — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:40:44 GMT

Replying to David Colquhoun and others.

The fundamental premise on which the objections to Homeopathy rest involve the delusion that "standard" medicine, whatever THAT is, is "evidence" based and founded on certain scientifc truths. It sounds all very logical and scientific untl the first patient walks in the door whose problem remains UNRESOLVED and UNKNOWN despite numerous laboratory tests. It is very much more hit or miss than the theorists and Goldacre's of the world care to admit.

And THEN, my dear skeptics, is the example of Homeopathy being used in Europe and England during the cholera and other deadly epidemics of the 1800's.

Supposedly, the rationalization is that the remarkably lower death rate of the Homeopaths' patients was due to the poor allopathic treatments of the time. But a close examination of the statistics reveals otherwise, that doing absolutely nothing in such epidemics would still result in a 30 to 60 percent mortality rate while the Homeopath's were getting 10-15%... OR BETTER.

In one case the near hysterical opposition to the Homeopaths was overruled in one country after their dramatic life savings during such epidemics. HERE, read some of the details for yourselves and then rethink if those high dilutions beyond Avogadro are quite so nonsensical as they've been made out to be:

http://laughingmysocksoff.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/sock-horror-in-cholera-statistics/

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

A Little Aside — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:21:04 GMT

I commented over there, although my comment is currently awaiting moderation.

Basically, at Laughing My Socks Off, a comparison is drawn between a 10-15% mortality rate in a hospital and a 50-60% mortality rate overall. You cannot compare the latter rate with the former, as not only are the former receiving other forms of care (like having nurses to hand), but the blog itself says that death could occur within hours, and so you've got a selected sample in the hospital of people who actually managed to stay alive long enough to get there.

You need to compare homeopathic treatment in the hospital with no treatment still in the hospital.

Until you lot get your head around having controls like that you will continue to be lead to incorrect conclusions.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:55:45 GMT

I find the attempts of defending allopathy laughable. All matter is energy which includes the human body. The only form of successfully treating the human body is through the appliance of energetic medicine. Homeopathy is such a form but there are many others. After many years of taking allopathic pain killers against my migraines with little success, I finally turned towards homeopathy. It worked wonders. I am now free of migraines. When my children get sick, homeopathy sorts them out in very little time. This is all the evidence I need. Evidence is based upon one's own experience. Only a fool relies on the information (being sold as "evidence") of unknown third parties. If I act upon such information and it works, great, if it does not work I move on to something else. Evidence is established either way as far as I am concerned. Whatever some more or less credible "authority" says based upon whatever studies, has no relevance in my life because an unknown third party can tell me anything for whatever known or unknown reasons. It is unreliable especially when looking at the funding of conventional medical studies.

So, the only question remains is why the allopaths have declared war against those who promote health based on natures own remedies? Why not simply let people decide and find out for themselves? Why the attempts at any cost, no matter how many die and remain debilitated, to push, coerce, mandate and impose the use of drugs which are essentially toxic? (Just study the possible side-effects of an allopathic drug). Why? ...... Why?

Trying to find the answers to these questions will open the Pandora's box of drug induced genocide but luckily, more and more people are waking up to this.

A good place to start one's research are the "Georgia Guidestones".

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:44:04 GMT

Brandon - do you not see the irony in your statement about only fools relying on the information of unknown third parties and then pushing forward your own unverifiable testimonials?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

A Little Aside — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:01:37 GMT

'I find the attempts of defending allopathy laughable. All matter is energy which includes the human body. The only form of successfully treating the human body is through the appliance of energetic medicine. Homeopathy is such a form but there are many others. After many years of taking allopathic pain killers against my migraines with little success, I finally turned towards homeopathy.'

Allopathic medicines and drugs are made of matter. Therefore by your reasoning they're energy, and therefore the energetic medicine you believe is required.

Homeopathic medicines contain no matter from the active substance therefore no energy from it (any supposed 'vibrations' being quite undetectable), and therefore can't work by your logic.

Please don't make such gross errors as thinking that the equivalence of matter and energy have any bearing on these things. If your reasoning was correct, the fact that a kilogram of water and a kilogram of petrol contain the same amount of energy would mean you could run your car on water. This is clearly ridiculous, unless you're a homeopath perhaps.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

adelaide — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:25:57 GMT

The problem with hard line allopathic priests of medicine is that they believe only their system has any credibility and they measure success by their own narrow yardstick and parameters.

I find that GPs are often the prime dispensers of mythology and folklore about illness and treatment. Many of the "diagnoses" made are little more than guess work. For example the ubiquitous "virus" that is given as a reason for virtually any set of symptoms involving tiredness or weakness often stops proper treatment and diagnosis being made. I have made this point before but how many children have died of bacterial meningitis because the GP said "give more calpol and call me in the morning." The old "viral" stand by again. There is very little "scientific" or analytical thought involved in the process of making a diagnosis in allopathic medicine. A drop down menu and only very obvious symptomotology is relied upon.

Allopathic medicine is one form of medicine that can work but so can many others whose proof lies in the experience of the patients who partake in the treatment. Why dismiss the experience of thousands of people as "unproven." This is the way by which adverse reactions to drugs are recorded, (or should be recorded) by the patient's personal experience and reaction, so why is not positive reaction to herbal medicine, or acupuncture?

To state that studies that involve control groups are the only valid ones, is naive and unscientific. People participating in controlled studies, particularly ones over a couple of years, often partake in dietary changes and develop changes of life style, and habits etc that may have a profound impact on the results of that study but none of these contributing factors is notated into the outcome.

Let me give you an example: A woman has had a very rare genetically linked form of cancer is asked to particupate in a national study. She has her blood drawn every few months, and has an ultra sound scan of her pelvis and answers a questionnaire regularly. However none of the "alternative" treatments she has are included in the information given to the doctors/scientists conducting the study. One lesion of 3 cm has shrunk completely and a fibroid tumour has reduced substantially. However there is no box to tick that asks about the rigourous treatment she is undertaking involving radical changes of diet and progesterone cream. So the results of the study will not be accurate as it excludes much information pertinent to the outcome. I know because I am the woman in this case.

I refused chemotherapy and radiation three times following surgery for bowel cancer. I have successfully shrunk several lesions by dietary treatment only- based on the biochemistry of cancer cells- and inhibiting the synethesis of their DNA.

I am on the one who suspected a genetic link and was scoffed at several times by allopathic doctors for suggesting it. Unfortunately i found out I was right after pressurising them to test me.

I was scoffed at by my GP when I suggested bowel cancer might be a cause of my symptoms which were attributed to the ubiquitous IBS. A syndrome I doubt really exists but is handy to have as it stops any thought being given to the cause of the intestinal symptoms.

Science is something that "alternative medicine" makes better use of sometimes than allopathetic medicine.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:26:42 GMT

"Brandon - do you not see the irony in your statement about only fools relying on the information of unknown third parties and then pushing forward your own unverifiable testimonials?"

Nice try, Andy. Delphi technique comes to mind. I do not give testimony. I share my experience which is evidence as far as I am concerned just for me as clearly stated in my previous post. You should not just accept it and as a matter of fact, you would be a fool if you did. This is exactly my point. How can I possibly accept anything a third party says based on knowledge or bias or whatever which I have no knowledge of?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

James Pannozzi — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:09:04 GMT

Aside to "A Little Aside"...

"Basically, at Laughing My Socks Off, a comparison is drawn between a 10-15% mortality rate in a hospital and a 50-60% mortality rate overall."

Ah but those in the Homeopathic hospital were being cured by, what you claim is absolutely NOTHING!! How could they ever have gotten such a low mortality rate? Could it be some sort of curative field such that if they stayed outside the Homeopathic hospital and remained on the sidewalk, the death rate was 50% but if they walked inside it was 15%??

Even without a properly designed study, the statistics were sufficently intriguing that that they were SUPPRESSED from the medical board's report on the epidemic and the Health dept. had to be forced by Parliament to give them up.

Regarding the equivalence of matter and energy

in your "refutation" (sic) of Homeopathic remedies, you seem to ignore the shaking, which

can and does TRANSFER energy from one medium to another - apparently a necessity for proper functioning according to the Homeopaths.

Last but not least, in the hysteria over the high dilution Homeopathic remedies, the matter of LOW DILUTION remedies, which do indeed have SOME bit of the original substance in them, seems to be ignored. (One envisions a classical Homeopath, wrinkling their nose, like a wine taster who has just been given a cheap wine, at the mere thoght of such crudity as having actual molecules of the curative substance still present).

You may wrap YOUR head around THOSE considerations and be advised that personal scientific knowledge, however clever, is not omniscience in the realm of the unknown.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:30:08 GMT

A little aside:

"Allopathic medicines and drugs are made of matter. Therefore by your reasoning they're energy, and therefore the energetic medicine you believe is required."

This is not what I said. I said that all matter is energy. I did not say that allopathic medicine is the form of energy that is required. Homeopathy is because the water contains the energy of the substance although the substance itself is no longer present in molecular form which is something that allopaths and "science based medicine" have a great deal of trouble to understand and supress. Why is that? Well, because allopathic quackers somehow believe that they can do it better than nature. Phew, quite arrogant, wouldn't you think?

And if you believe that you cannot drive your car on water than you cannot. If you care to do some research you might find out how to do just that.

People have to do their own research.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Anti-D — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:27:58 GMT

'Bitter' is an appropriate adjective to describe the struggle, but 'SoE'?!? (Clearly David Colquhoun does not get the intended irony). I prefer the phrase 'High Priests of Scientism' myself. Andy Lewis and DC are self-appointed gatekeepers for the science of the narrow-minded and seem to be more interested in establishing quasi-religious medical and scientific dogmas than anything else. They are extremists and giving them any kind of attention is like giving the BNP a platform in a political debate.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

awesom-o-4000 — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 05:52:21 GMT

Anti-D said: "is like giving the BNP a platform in a political debate".

Yay! We're running up against the boundaries of Godwin's Law already.

Go on, Anti-D, one more push and we'll be there. Say it, this whole reliance on evidence thing that the Sons of the Enlightenment seem to love so is reminiscent of which 20th C. German dictator...?

(Hint: it's not Kaiser Wilhem).

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Beryl — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:51:51 GMT

Stop sqabbling. Homeopathy works. I have seen horses, dogs and cats cured after being given up as uncurable by vets. They don't listen to the words of the " snake oil shaman" so it's hardly psychosomatic. As a human being I've had better results from homeopathy than standard medical treatments. I was an SRN, and ended up as a Theatre Sister before retirement, so I am not completely ignorant.

Many years ago a certain Doctor advocated using intravenous Vitamin C on Cancer patients and they were recovering. The chemical companies ran trials involving oral vitamin C, which is patently not the same thing, and completely debunked his assertion that Cancer could be cured by Vitamin C. Now they are trialling intravenous Vitamin C again. The Chemical companies won't like it because there is no money to be made in producing Vitamin C.

I, for one, would refuse chemo. You wouldn't take arsenic to cure a wart, so why poison your whole body to kill cancer? There's apparently a lot of money to be made in poisoning patients .

Of course, if that Doctor is proved right, how many people have died unnecessarily over the years.

Never trust the Chemical guys. Remember Thalidomide, Vioxx, et alia. The list of their mistakes is horrendous. They advise everyone over 50 to buy Statins over the counter without a prescription. They don't make a big thing out of the side effects, and if you take statins you should have monthly blood tests. If you buy over the counter this won't happen, and most doctors just reach for the prescription pad and don't know blood monitoring is essential.

I have, on the other hand, never heard of anyone dying through taking homeopathic medicines.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:27:34 GMT

Berly

Vitamin C is a chemical. Ascorbic acid. So some chemicals, by your own logic, are acceptable, and some not. Which ones? I would suggest we base that decision on evidence.

You?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

adelaide — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:26:21 GMT

Harradine,

Thanks for recognising that other substances contain active chemicals other than the ones endorsed by drug companies and some doctors. I would interested in your response to my posts about my "alternative" treatment, involving no "chemotherapy" ( to clarify, as interpreted and administered by hospitals) yet based on the biochemistry of tumour producing cancer cells. Glycolysis makes a PET scan possible, the biochemical process is recognised. Likewise it is recognised that Interfering with glycolysis helps make apoptosis possible. Sugar is needed for many cancer cells, in order to synthesize DNA. By depriving cancer cells of their energy source you help facilitate apoptosis. This can be achieved by manipulating the the food you eat to drastically reducing the intake of nutrients essential to the function of the cancer cells. Researchers are looking at ways to do this with enzymes and in fact my treatment was recommended by scientist in this field. I have had no conventional chemotherapy at all. See A P John Cancer Institute site and get back to me.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 12:40:52 GMT

Harradine, you said:

"Vitamin C is a chemical. Ascorbic acid. So some chemicals, by your own logic, are acceptable, and some not. Which ones? I would suggest we base that decision on evidence."

Correct, everything we take in has chemical characteristics because chemistry is the foundation of all matter or, in other words, the manifested energy. It is my understanding that when people talk about chemical medicine that they refer to artifical, not naturally produced or altered substances.

Vitamin C occurs naturally which should answer your question as to which chemicals are acceptable and which ones are not for me personally.

As far as your call for evidence is concerned, here an example of how ridiculous that is. Let us assume that a child which has no experience with fire touches a flame and gets burned. What do you think will make the child more careful next time? Its experience that it was very painful or a report from a scientist who has made a double-blind study of people touching an open flame?

Evidence does not exist unless the conclusions of a piece of research lie within the field of personal experience. In that case and in that case only I can say that my experience is congruent with the conclusions of a study. However, somebody else might make an experience opposite to the conclusions of the research. Are you so mindless and arrogant to claim that this person is wrong?

If somebody uses homeopathy and his/her medical problems are helped or go away, who are you to deny that person his/her positive experience and ask for evidence when in fact the evidence was already given?

Our planet has given us everything we need to remain healthy. It is the mindless greed of some individuals who manufacture lack and dependence by creating an "evidence" based system which excludes the mysteries of nature because nature does not operate within the confined scientific mind. People who accept a reduced and limited mindset by arrogantly claiming that nature makes mistakes are the contributors to the biggest genocide that has ever happened on this planet and is continuing to happen.

There are universal laws at play here of which you know nothing due to your own self induced confinement to a materialistic subset which prevents you from seing such laws.

Having said that, the tide is turning and people start understanding that it is not important what a third party says.

How much scientific "evidence" do you think would there be if every scientific researcher or those calling a piece of research "evidence" would have to swear upon penalty of perjury and under their full unlimited commercial liability that their conclusions are true and correct? Nobody in their right mind would sign such a sworn statement and therefore, no evidence exists. However, I am happy to sign a sworn statement to the effect that everytime I have had a migraine and took a specific homeopathic product my migraine disappeared within a short period of time. Why would I sign it? Because it is my evidence pertaining to my own choice and not creating any liability or claim impacting on any other party except myself. This creates a fact in law which cannot be rebutted unless somebody proofs and swears under penalty of perjury and under his/her full unlimited commercial liability that homeopathy never helps me with my migraines, has never helped me and will never help me. You try and get a scientist to swear that his conclusions are true and he will always say that he "believes" it to be true. So, all he did was swearing an oath on his belief. In our insane world, we take his belief to be the truth and evidence when in fact the point of his conclusions being correct have not been proofen or evidenced whatsoever. In most cases of scientific research, a scientist does not even need to make a statement of liability nor does any politican promoting the research of a scientist. We accept pure third party belief at best when we let our children be vaccinated.

So, people, if you want to protect yourself against allopathic quackery, ask for a sworn statement under the full unlimited liability and penalty of perjury of the affiant who claims that this or that is evidence. You will find out that the so called evidence vanishes into thin air. To pre-empt any misunderstandings: I am not a lawyer or solicitor and what I said above is not intended to be any form of legal advice. It only is the process of sharing my own personal experience.

Evidence is the result of our own personal experience.

Brandon

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:37:04 GMT

Brandon - your views on evidence are fascinating - and I believe confirm my suspicions that advocates of alternative medicine are people who have difficulty coping with risk, uncertainty and doubt.

The standards of evidence you demand of medicine are of course unrealistically high. You know this. The standards you accept for your own beliefs are ridiculously low. It is an interesting double standard. You claim that every time you have a migrane and take some pill the headache clears up. There are also people in the world who believe swearing at traffic lights makes them change and dogs who believe that barking at postmen makes them go away.

Of course, in real everyday life you do not apply your own demanded standards of evidence for anything. You could not function if you did so. You do not demand sworn statements from taxi drivers to absolutely assure you that you will arrive in one piece. You make no similar demands of the people who supply your food, your electrical goods, your clothes and your electricity that everything is perfectly safe.

In reality we all live with varying degrees of risk and uncertainty in all aspects of our lives. That does not preclude us examining imperfect and incomplete levels of evidence to come to rational decisions. As new evidence is forthcoming then we may reassess our views of things. Scientists know this - and that is why they always talk about levels of evidence and degrees of proof. There are things in the world for which there is so much evidence that we can act as if we are certain - but the scientist can always express some doubt if pushed. That is the pragmatic approach to evidence.

One thing we can be almost certain about is the nature of homeopathy. It contradicts laws of science that are backed up by huge amounts of robust evidence - not perfect, granted - but very, very good indeed. People's experience with homeopathy is of course not doubted - I am sure your migranes do clear up after taking the sugar pills - but your explanation is much better explained by other factors - natural course of illness, selective reporting etc.

It is extroardinary that you have so much faith in alternative medicine despite its obvious shortcomings. As I say, this is the result of a absolutist view of evidence that is incompatible with reality - it creates a closed mind where it would take unreasonable levels of evidence to change it. It is the very definition of dogma - unable to reassess your beliefs as new partial evidence emerges. Interesting stuff.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:09:37 GMT

Andy,

Here we have again a typical NLP word and sense twister. You guys are really good at selling the most unbelievable junk to people's subconsciousness. Not one word of what you said in your last post has anything to do with what I said. Not one.

So, let me disect what you said so that other people can see the fallacies of your "logics" applied in you last post:

"Brandon - your views on evidence are fascinating - and I believe confirm my suspicions that advocates of alternative medicine are people who have difficulty coping with risk, uncertainty and doubt."

Emphasis is on "believe". You believe that it confirms your suspicions. Right? So, it is not a general statement and therefore does not apply to what I said or who I am because you do not know how I am. Let me put your mind at rest. Life has risks, no doubt. Some risks we can choose, others we are just exposed to but in the end, I could avoid all those actions which I feel are too risky for my personal taste. If you are happy to pump your body full with pharmaceutical petro chemicals, be my guest. Do what you want and stay out of other people's lives. Bottomline of you first paragraph is that you expressed a personal believe which might or might not be correct.

You said: "The standards of evidence you demand of medicine are of course unrealistically high. You know this."

Where in my last post have I expressed an expectation of a high standard of medical evidence? Could you point that out to me? Have I not expressed that there is no evidence at all as far as I am concerned due to the fact that I do not accept the utterings of a third party as evidence especially when this third party emphasises his "believe" to be correct? A third party could say anything. Just because somebody tells us that the research of the third party is all done under strictly controlled conditions and is scientifically sound, do I have to take the outcome as evidence especially in light of the fact that the raw data of a study are never published nor given out on demand? And then these "scientists" refuse to swear that the results of their research are correct even by their own standard? They only swear on their "belief" to be correct which technically creates the situation of "lawful excuse" if somebody gets injured or dies as a result of using allopathic chemicals.

So, here you put into my mouth things I never said and that makes you an unreliable or dishonorable human being unless, of course, you lack the capacity to comprehend the bigger picture in which case I appologise.

You said: "The standards you accept for your own beliefs are ridiculously low. It is an interesting double standard."

Previously, you said that I said that I had to high expectations for medical evidence when in fact I did not express any such expectation and here you talk about the standards of my "believes" to be "ridiculously low". Here, people, you have a classical example of spin. This is the conditioning of the subconscious if not read carefully and you will find that in the News, movies and advertisements all the time. So, let's debunk this piece of psychological warfare upon your mind.

Andy here suggests that medicine is related to evidence whereas what I personally consider to be evidence is believe when in fact I spoke about my personal experience to be all the evidence I need. He further associates the word "evidence" with the word "high" and the word "believe" with the word low. In the subconscious this creates the image of medicine being of high evidence and belief being of low standards. He does so by putting things in my mouth which I verifyably never said.

This is sophisticated stuff and needs professional training.

Andy said: "You claim that every time you have a migrane and take some pill the headache clears up. There are also people in the world who believe swearing at traffic lights makes them change and dogs who believe that barking at postmen makes them go away."

Well, Andy, here you have really fallen into low realms and it shows that you are out of arguments. Well, I make indeed this claim and unless you can proof the opposit my claim stands as a fact of personal experience. What exactly have people swearing at traffic lights and barking dogs to do with this? Where is the logic in your statement? Are you saying that I am a liar? Or are you trying to suggest that I am of unsound mind and if yes, what proof do you have?

Do you see the trap you have fallen into here? If you leave your own personal space and enter into another's personal space with accusations and suggestions, you need proof, otherwise, you are on shaky grounds.

Andy said: "Of course, in real everyday life you do not apply your own demanded standards of evidence for anything. You could not function if you did so. You do not demand sworn statements from taxi drivers to absolutely assure you that you will arrive in one piece. You make no similar demands of the people who supply your food, your electrical goods, your clothes and your electricity that everything is perfectly safe."

Well, rest assured that I would if a taxi driver would claim that he can drive me safely and if I believed that the association of taxi drivers is actively engaged in lying to the people about taxi safety whilst at the same time trying to plant a subconscious fear into people about busses, trains and planes. So, here again, you are twisting the sense of what I said in my previous post. If somebody makes a claim about safety and evidence when entering before the public, he/she must proof the safety for everyone. If I say that using homeopathy repeatedly with great success is sufficient evidence to me, I do not make public claims because I am the source of my action of using homeopathy. I do not claim that it helps generally and everyone. It is my choice and people have the right to choose.

On the 4th paragraph, I can only repeat what I said before: There is no evidence. Evidence is a result of research which can be verified by everyone through personal experience. This can only be achieved by giving ALL the facts pertaining to the research free of spin. This certainly is not the case when it comes to allopathic quackery.

Andy said: "One thing we can be almost certain about is the nature of homeopathy. It contradicts laws of science that are backed up by huge amounts of robust evidence - not perfect, granted - but very, very good indeed."

Homeopathy is fully supported by the latest research of quantum physics. Quantum physics seems to have advanced to such a state that it actually for the first time in history can scientifically explain the workings of homeopathy. However, since I have no way of veryifying such research directly, I can only take such results as a confirmation of my own experience but it does not alter my experience. However, it seems that the research of quantum physics is published to a much higher standard and in much greater detail than the so called medical studies. Therefore, your claim that Homeopathy contradicts the laws of science is outright false and misleading unless of course you also claim that quantum physics cannot be counted as science. A rather foolish proposition, wouldn't you agree?

Andy said: "People's experience with homeopathy is of course not doubted - I am sure your migranes do clear up after taking the sugar pills - but your explanation is much better explained by other factors - natural course of illness, selective reporting etc."

What a messed up thinking process you expose here. Full of false suggestions and manipulations. Oh boy! How can you be sure that my migranes clear up after talking a sugar pill? Are you promoting the old myth that Homeopathy are just sugar pills? Do you have any proof that I have not tried sugar to see whether it is the sugar taking away my migranes? As far as I am concerned, "non-homeopathic" sugar has never helped me with anything. You can try and explain it by any means you see fit. It has nothing to do with me and most likely has nothing to do with truth either. Most importantly, you cannot back up any explanation with any proof. So, if your ways of thinking and logic are the standards of the very realm you try to defend, I feel confirmation of my suspicions about allopathic quackery.

Andy said: "It is extroardinary that you have so much faith in alternative medicine despite its obvious shortcomings."

Here, Andy tries to suggest that it is a fact that alternative medicine has obvious shortcomings. He does not explain what these so obvious shortcomings actually are. A typical NLP trick to suggest something is a fact when it is not. Well, I want to be kind to Andy after I have debunked his last post and reach a hand out to him. Perhaps he meant that original (not alternative, allopathy is the alternative medicine having caused mankind to almost forget about the original medicine) medicine has its limits. It does indeed have its limits. Original medicine is not very useful when it comes to trauma like accidents and inner injuries. But it is not a shortcoming. It is not the right place to use original medicine other than in a supportive role if it comes to trauma medicine.

Andy said: "As I say, this is the result of a absolutist view of evidence that is incompatible with reality - it creates a closed mind where it would take unreasonable levels of evidence to change it. It is the very definition of dogma - unable to reassess your beliefs as new partial evidence emerges. Interesting stuff."

I am afraid that Andy again makes a determination here which he is not qualified to make. Is he my shrink? He boldy claims that I am propagating absolutist views and dogma. Here, people, it is important to understand that it is an important tool in the spin doctors toolbox to accuse the one who tries to promote freedom of choice and will of the very things they themselves are quilty of. Original medicine (mistakenly labelled as alternative medicine) has nothing to do with dogma. Everything is done in freedom, with open mind and the only thing that counts is the result. Not everything works for everyone, we know that. Homeopathy is supported by the millions of people who have used it in the past and who use it today. If its success is based on pure placebo then an allopathic product should work as well as placebo which it even sometimes might do. This would be logical.

It really does not matter in the end. The result is what counts.

My point really is to try and make people aware of the outrageous lies with which the petro chemical pharma industry tries to kill of original medicine.

If the allopaths would just stop making their false claims about "evidence" being in existence, I would have no issue with this and everyone could just go home and exercise their free will and free choice.

I encourage everyone to do their own research and believe in their intuition or gutt feeling. Do not take my word for it. Doing your own research is rewarding and in the end you always have the choice to go with what you feel comfortable with. Don't dismiss your own positive experiences just because some study says something contray to your own experience. It is hearsay. If you do dismiss your own experiences for that reason, you should ask yourself why you did that.

Last but not least, if anybody makes a claim about a medicine being based on third party evidence, somebody must have liability. If you do not get anybody's signature accepting liability, you are basically agreeing to being used like a laboratory rat which accepts all risks. Always read the leaflets of any product. The section called "side-effects" is very important. These are effects that were observed during trials on human beings. Ask you doctor to see the leaflet listing the "side-effects" of vaccines BEFORE you give the go ahead.

Now the legal stuff:

Everything stated above is an expression of some of my personal opinions and experiences.

If you have any health problems, get in touch with your state licensed doctor and please note that nothing aforementioned is intended to be medical or legal advice in any shape or form. I am neither a doctor nor a lawyer nor a solicitor.

Brandon

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Richard King — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:58:33 GMT

I have followed this discussion for a while and have a few thoughts from the point of view of someone who has many years practical experience of science as well as having direct experience and involvement in an area of complementary therapy.

Jack of Kent: “In what circumstances would they accept any allternative medicine to be invalid?”

Whether mainstream medicine, other forms of medicine, or anything else, to prove a negative requires infinite evidence; basic logic as you are, presumably, aware. In real science everything is probabilities, no absolutes. There is evidence in the Complementary and Alternative Medicine field but not necessarily of the standard that many of us would wish. At least in part, that is because there is a great deal of “research” carried out by people who do not understand what they are researching, which is not a very good basis on which to do any research. It is perfectly possible to apply science to CAM, though the way it is applied by many at present has flaws that are obvious to those of us who understand the field. I am a Chartered Engineer and a Healer, among other things; well versed in science, while being very aware of its limitations, as well as having knowledge, experience and insights, let alone abilities, that by far the greater majority of those who have become involved in research in those fields do not have.

There were obvious flaws in several of the televised “experiments” in recent years. Similarly, there was a very obvious flaw in Edzard Ernst’s reported experiments on Spiritual Healing. To some extent I am surprised he found Healers willing to participate, though most Healers would not necessarily pick up on experimental flaws as readily as someone with a technical background, even those flaws close to qualifying as “howlers”.

Science at the classical physics level is insufficient to make any real headway in many aspects of CAM. Mainstream scientists do not seem to go beyond that. The pioneer researchers do go beyond the classical level and appear to be making progress. There is both theory and experiment which makes a great deal of sense from both my experimental point of view as well as the science point of view.

There is also the problem of premises; mainstream science is based on false ones. At the relatively rudimentary level of most physical science that does not show (but it does at the quantum physics and cosmology levels, or at least begins to do so), other than in areas of misunderstanding, ignorance, such as the so called placebo effect, leading to, essentially, “we have proved that does not work because, as far as we can tell, it has the same effect as something else which we do not understand”.

“It is disappointing that you blog without establishing facts first. It makes you appear rather unreliable on all your other points.”

On one page alone in “Trick or Treatment” there are almost twenty errors in 350 words. How unreliable does that make Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh? How does someone research a subject area for over a decade and still confuse different types of Healing, fail to get definitions right, etc., as well as other anomalies? To spend so much time on research and still appear to not understand important areas that research covers is quite an achievement, if a somewhat perverse one.

Andy Lewis: “There is also the choice to believe in evidence and reason - science.”

The implication seems to be that evidence and reason equals science, and vice versa. There are means of evidence and reason that are not necessarily science. Much of the science pedalled is little above early secondary school level, with the logic and reason being of a similar standard.

There is no proof that science is the best way of acquiring knowledge and understanding, or the only way. That is not to decry science; that is to recognise its limitations. Science cannot prove science; that is a circular argument. If anything else is used to prove science, that other process is at least equivalent to science. Of course it is entirely acceptable to have faith that science is the best method, which raises other interesting issues and thoughts.

Many of the proponents of the science, reason and logic approach also indulge in non-scientific language and abuse; “woo”, “quack”, etc., which is also junior school level, like the science, or worse. Descent into abuse is surrender of reason and argument; nowhere near “evidence and reason - science.”

Brandon: “There are universal laws at play here of which you know nothing due to your own self induced confinement to a materialistic subset which prevents you from seing such laws.”

It is easier than most for me to concur with that as my senses are open enough to be well aware of that directly, though, of course, many people are aware without sensing in as much detail.

Andy: “Brandon - your views on evidence are fascinating - and I believe confirm my suspicions that advocates of alternative medicine are people who have difficulty coping with risk, uncertainty and doubt.”

That would hardly fit with me, or anyone else I know in the complementary therapy field; we have no particular difficulty in coping; probably less than many people. From my own point of view from the late 1970s and through the 1980s I was involved in research in the field of design allowable properties for advanced composite materials at two aerospace companies, though a forced change of career prevented me completing a PhD at the University of Surrey in the subject; 75% of the way there at the time I submitted he proposal, according to my supervisors. So, I know a fair amount about risk, uncertainty, levels of proof, etc.

I am not involved in homeopathy, nor do I know a greater deal about it, though I suspect any mechanism may well be at a similar level to that of my own field; I am a Healer and have enough higher sense perception, as Barbara Brennan refers to it, to be aware of more just the physical. I do not sense as much as she does, though what I do sense concurs with what she describes in her books and on her Web Site; similarly with my many colleagues in the field. That also fits with the work of Korotkov, Levichev, et al, though none of my fellow healers can get their head round the idea of the aura represented by a stress energy tensor in non-Minkowski/Einstein space time. I wondered about the tensor approach to auras as I feel them with ease and, sometimes, see them as well, and Internet research led me to Korotkov and Levichev’s work, which makes a great deal of sense from my dual perspective. I have no problem with the concepts though Alexander Levichev’s mathematics is somewhat ahead of my engineering mathematics – he has two PhDs in mathematics, whereas engineering mathematics is at about mathematics Pass Degree level, or was in my day (Brunel University, 1967-1971); though I can get quite a long way through Roger Penrose’s book, “Road to Reality”, before my mathematics really runs into the sand; no trouble at all with any of the concepts. The aura is not magnetic, certainly not in the conventional sense, and does not emanate from the physical body. The problem is that many complementary therapists do not understand science and most scientists do not understand complementary therapies; there are a few of us with both understandings, even fewer with both capabilities; I just happen to be one of the latter.

None of what I know of the higher levels clashes with physical science, at least no more than quantum mechanics and cosmology clash with Newtonian mechanics; the latter being valid, up to a point, at which the others take over. Similarly, mainstream science is valid, up to a point, then other matters take over. Mainstreams science is a crude approximation within certain limits; when it goes beyond those the anomalies arise, like the so-called placebo effect.

”As I say, this is the result of a absolutist view of evidence that is incompatible with reality - it creates a closed mind where it would take unreasonable levels of evidence to change it.”

Which reality?

According to quantum mechanics, “solid” matter, is 99.9999999999999 % empty, non-existent. As Marcus Chown wrote in “Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You” (pp12), after explaining, broadly, the nature of the physical, how an understanding of the true nature of matter came about: “Despite its appearance of solidity, the familiar world was actually no more substantial than a ghost.” That is remarkably close to the esoteric understanding; the ideas of string theory seem even closer. So, even self styled sceptics, mainstream scientists, are, essentially, ghosts in a ghostly existence, adamantly claiming that all that is ghostly is real and that nothing else exists.

Would Richard Wiseman’s reported moving of the goalposts for acceptable levels of evidence for the non-physical, just as that evidence is mounting, also be a case of a closed mind?

“It is extroardinary that you have so much faith in alternative medicine despite its obvious shortcomings.”

The third largest cause of death in the United States in 2006 was the medical profession. Depending on the way the figures were put together, apparently, it is arguably more lethal than that. According to Dr Phil Hammond you are 30,000 times more likely to use your life if you entrust it entrusted to a hospital doctor than to an airline pilot; partly because doctors, unlike airline pilots, are not routinely retested and taken through simulated crisis situations. According to the BMJ Web Site only 13% of commonly used treatments is supported by good evidence; evidence based medicine!?

“A statistical analysis of World Health Organisation data reveals that the poor performance of the NHS is causing 17,157 deaths per year”, the Taxpayers Alliance.

Along with many others, I find the shear arrogance of the mainstream medical profession, as well as mainstream science in general off putting on one hand and humorous on the other, though the former when it comes to making decisions on my health. (An obvious question, or comment, is anticipated; the answer is equally obvious, from this direction at least.)

I have yet to meet a healer who caused anyone’s death by what they do in the healing sense. Like Ted Fricker, the first Healer I met and experienced, as well as, again, any other healers I know, I never advise against the use of conventional medicine; it is part of the physical life experience and healing is over and above anything done on the physical level.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:28:53 GMT

Wow Brandon, that was a long post and too much to pick apart in one go. Let me focus on one are to show how little you understand what you are talking about. You said:

"Homeopathy is fully supported by the latest research of quantum physics. Quantum physics seems to have advanced to such a state that it actually for the first time in history can scientifically explain the workings of homeopathy. However, since I have no way of veryifying such research directly, I can only take such results as a confirmation of my own experience but it does not alter my experience. "

Now, first off. Quantum theory does not support homeopathy. This is just false. Please show me references. If you suggest Milgrom, I will just laugh. His musings are absurd as anyone who actually knows about QM will tell you. He cannot decide whether his thoughts are metaphors or models. If metaphors then QM does not explain homeopathy. If models - he is simply wrong. He thinks quantum entanglement has something to say about he 'patient-practitioner' relationship. Hogwash. Entanglement occurs between a few quantum particles - not macroscopic objects like people and pills. Milgrom's musing have the affect of bamboozling an eager homeopathic audience, as you demonstrate in your next sentence.

Let me quote a physicist on Milgrom:

"In summary, Milgrom seems to have copied out a few equations from articles, textbooks and popularizations of quantum physics, assigned arbitrary and shifting properties to the entities within them, and then claimed to have a model/analogy/metaphor for homeopathy. The more seriously the metaphor is taken, the less sense it makes."

http://shpalman.livejournal.com/8644.html#cutid1

You admit you cannot check this for yourself, but you accept it because it fits in with preconceived ideas of how the world should be. This is classic quack thinking - selectively cherry picking which pieces of evidence you like in order to confirm your axiomatic beliefs.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:48:32 GMT

Andy,

There we go again. Avoiding the issues, twisting, tinkering and making false representations. It must be pathological. I rest my case and I leave it to the reader to decide for themselves.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Cirkux — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:50:35 GMT

"any therapy that doesn't involve powerful pharmaceuticals" should read "Any therapy that doesn't have clinically proven efficacy". You advocate leaving up to the patients "common sense" which treatment to go for, but surely the whole point of having medical professionals (or professionals of any kind really) with a training that meets exacting standards and is as up to date with current research as possible that you as a lay person cannot hope to make an informed decision regarding your medical needs? The whole reasoning behind sympathetic magic (and homeopathy surely falls into this category) may seem reasonable to someone relying more on common sense than scientific knowledge, but when it comes down to it I really do prefer to be treated by a professional.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:23:09 GMT

Cirkux,

If homeopathy is sympathetic magic (which is your opinion), then what is allopathic medicine? Black magic?

And to just point out your flaw in logic. You say that as a lay person one cannot even hope to make an informed decision regarding one's medical needs. This is true to a certain degree and I tell you why: No average human being understands so called "medical evidence". Therefore, no average human being can make an informed decision. Therefore, many people go by hearsay because that's what it is as far as they are concerned.

People who look beyond hearsay understand that and will try out other forms of medicine like the original medicine (mistakenly labelled "alternative medicine") which also evolves more and more.

You can choose any "professional" medical form you like, it is your choice. Why not try a professional homeopathic doctor? You might be surprised.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:50:06 GMT

"There we go again. Avoiding the issues, twisting, tinkering and making false representations. It must be pathological. I rest my case and I leave it to the reader to decide for themselves."

I have decided. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about, but you are happy talking about it anyway.

'Evidence is the result of our own personal experience.'

Wrong. Personal experience, not evidence, is the result of personal experience. But you raise an interesting point. I does seem that proponents of alternative medicine support it because, in their own personal experience, it has worked out for them. Of course, forget the people for whom it did nothing at all, but for some they feel better after they use it and so its good enough for them. Can't argue with that.

The problem arises that many such people seem to out their hands over their ears when told about placebo effects. I;m not sure whether they don't beleive in the placebo effect, don't understand it or just willfully ignore it, but the effec is the same.

All effects seen or described so far of alternative medicine are entirely consistent with placebo effect and can be totally accounted for by that phenomenon. That is the exact definition of alternative medicine. Once such effect cannot be accounted for by placebo effects due to repeated and consistently demonstration of this then the treatment is consider evidence based.

Accept your own experience for your treatments, fine. But the problems start when people start to advise others. By your own definition, your personal experience cannot be applied to anyone else. Your subjective experience is utterly useless for anyone else. You can only say something works for you. So why then do people advise others to use alternative treatments? For that you need objective evidence and it is that evidence that alternative medicine, by definition, has so far failed to provide.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:40:55 GMT

Oh Harradine,

Still touting the same old nonsense and then making such catastrophic mistakes when it comes to logic.

The placebo effect might indeed be quite a powerful helper. I do not contest that at all.

The only problem when it comes to homeopathy and placebo is that it actually seems to also work great on animals and baby's. So, as far as I am concerned, the placebo argument is nullified at least as far as homeopathy is concerned.

Now, let me teach you a little bit about evidence. You are basically in your mindset endorsing products purely on the basis of third party "evidence" without actually trying them out, at least the majority of allopathic products. That is your own choice but to suggest that such third party "evidence" which cannot be verified by the vast majority of people should be accepted by others as "the evidence" whilst, at the same time, playing down the personal first hand experience of people, testifies to the fact that you have a vested interest in convincing people to accept a third party opinion and put that above their own experience. You appeal to the herd instinct of people according to the principle: "I have seen in on TV so it must be true". Have you ever watched Darren Brown? He shows how easy it is to manipulate the subconscious of people to such a degree that people actually think he is a magician.

So, unless I can personally verify a drug trial, I have absolutely no reason to believe that the published outcome is correct, unbiased and in the best interest of the people. This is supported by the many people I know who have fallen into the allopathic drug trap and are getting sicker and sicker whereas those around me who stop taking such drugs are starting to feel better. The ones who then are even openminded enough to at least try an original form of medicine (allopathy is the alternative medicine, homeopathy and other natural remedies are the original medicine and have been for a very long time), I can observe improvements and often outright disappearance of their ailments. Again, personal experience which supports my own experience and hence it has become evidence as far as I am concerned. Easy to understand, isn't it? Other's might make different observations, others again might actually be helped by allopathy, I do not know anyone who is but that does not mean that there are not some who are helped by allopathy.

By the way, in case you have not noticed. The only people urging, pushing and almost coercing others to use a specific form of medicine are those who have a vested interest in allopathy. Original medicine is supported by the millions and millions of people who actually have made their own personal experience that it helps. Of course, the hundreds of thousands of people who die annually from the side effects of allopathic drugs in the US alone can no longer talk.

Anyway, I am fully confident that the days of Big Pharma are numbered and I wonder what people in the future will be saying when looking back at our time.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:39:23 GMT

Brandon - have you ever read andy Derren Brown? I recommend Tricks of the Mind. He gives no succour to homeopaths and exposes the tricks that lead unprepared people to fall for such idiocy.

One such trick is to fail to understand how quackery works - you display this perfectly Brandon. You say homeopathy cannot be a placebo because it works on babies and animals. Placebo is but one method you can fall for it. 'Regression to the Mean' is another big one with post hoc reasoning and wishful thinking. Before you educate others, perhaps you could look these up.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:43:33 GMT

Regarding placebo effects. Placebo effects are also seen in babies and animals. Why wouldn't they be? To think that they would not be is to misunderstand what constitutes placebo effects. Have very marked effects which involve much more than simply the expectations of the patient. The incidental recovery from illness as well as the act of intervention itself can have effects on babies and animals as well as adult humans. Again, there has yet to be an effect of homeopathy that cannot be fully accounted for by placebo effects- the two are identical and so far cannot be discriminated.

Which is why I find it so puzzling that supporters of homeopathy do not show more interest in placebo effects. Instead they deny that their treatment has anything to do with them (despite not being able to provide any evidence for this, and when tested the results only confirm that placebo effects are where they should be looking to explain their treatments). But they don't. Instead they have chosen to promote a system of vital forces (a medieval term), ultra-dilutions, water memory and an entire system of demonstrably false beliefs.

One thing you haven't noticed Brandon is that many of those who oppose such systems have nothing at all to do with the heath care system, but instead come from the scientific community. They reason for this is that the bread and butter, the core tennet of science is to determine cause and effect. For about the last 500 years (since the enlightment), mankind has developed a system of testing falisfiable hypotheses through experimentation with a view of determining cause and effect. It is the best system we have for finding out what is going on and what is in fact, simply a result of our own inherently biased views, prejudices and basically believing what we want to believe.

When the scientific method is applied to the study of homeopathy, the evidence so far demonstrated no difference from placebo and so the current best hypothesis is that homeopathy is indistinguishable from placebo effect, which suggests it is due to placebo effects. This has nothing at all to do with drug companies, it is to do with apllying the correct system of scepticism and logic to any claim made about the world. I really don't care what treatments people use at all- pharmaceutical ,alternative- is makes no difference at all to me. Whatever people want to use, go and use it and feel happy doing so.

My interest, as someone from a scientific background comes is in observing that there is an alternative ideology at play among the alternative health supporters. An ideology that promotes a system of health care by making claims that it cannot support via evidence- i.e., a non evidence based ideology. Since I disagree with this ideology, I address it and engage it, invite it to put its case forward and present the basis for my evidence based ideology. This I would do for people who believe in ghosts, elves, who make any health claims at all (including pharmaceuticals), etc, etc, etc.

You promote an ideology of accepting personal experience as the most robust evidence available and I disagree with that for many reasons. You will find that if you promote systems and ideas that disregard the value to objective evidence long enough and loudly enough, rational people will disagree with you.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:27:24 GMT

Andy,

"Brandon - have you ever read andy Derren Brown? I recommend Tricks of the Mind. He gives no succour to homeopaths and exposes the tricks that lead unprepared people to fall for such idiocy."

I am sure that he does not make any references to homeopathy. Where exactly did I make such a claim? With that you have again discredited yourself.

He gives however plenty of examples of how suggestions work and he is a master in NLP. The very tools you are using in your posts.

Andy, you have to live with what you are doing, not me. I hope that people realise that.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:45:15 GMT

Harradine,

Good that you state your opinion. It provides me with the opportunity to debunk the techniques used in such posts so that readers at least have a chance to learn more about it. And here once more for the record loud and clear:

Evidence is what I can verify to be true. Anything else is hearsay no matter which mouth it is coming out from. This includes all of my statements until such time somebody else can verify for him(her)self my experiences. Then he/she has all the evidence (s)he needs.

Your error lies in the fact that you propagate as fact the mere assumption that so called "medical studies" constitute evidence to those who have no way of verifying the result. You then have the arrogance to put that hearsay above the personal experience of people. There is no "objective" evidence and there can never be. Also, best endeavour is not good enough for me especially if by law pharma companies are exempt from liability for vaccine damages. This speaks volumes.

Also, please refrain from converting into claims what I have clearly stated to be my experience and belief. You are a master in sidelining the actual issue, picking out a narrow point and then elaborate on it. For a change, try to rebutt any of my above posts point for point.

Otherwise, thanks for the great opportunities you provide to me for practicing my NLP deconstruction skills.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:09:18 GMT

Brandon, you are sure that Derren Brown makes no reference to homeopathy? Without reading the book? Wow, you are a a magician - or a faker.

Brown is scathing of the nonsense of homeopathy and describes it as just one more 'trick of the mind'. In his programme 'The System' he also explains it as nothing but confirmation bias. Something bountifully displayed in this web site. He is also very critical of NLP and has never claimed to use it in his tricks. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:45:46 GMT

Andy,

You need to get up a little earlier in the morning if you think that you can spin, twist and distort things I say.

Try a little logic. It was your false suggestion that I associated Darren Brown with Homeopathy. Based on that I have to uphold the logical flow of my argument. And where did I state that I did not or did read his book(s)? And since when is a lack of claim of using NLP proof that he does not use it? And how do you know that he never claimed to use NLP? Does being critical of something mean that one has no use for it? Have you been party or witness to all the conversations he had? Last but not least, since you have introduced the association between Darren Brown and Homeopathy, is Darren Brown an expert on Homeopathy?

What evidence do you have that Homeopathy does not work and how would such evidence be superior to millions of people's own experiences?

And why have you not addressed Richard Kings post above who gave an extremely balanced view in my opinion?

Andy, this was just another attempt to discredit me and to side track the issue. Perhaps you care to make a point-for point rebuttal of my posts from September 16, 2008 01:09.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:31:56 GMT

Brandon - you are quite special. Perhaps you might like to read what I said. I did not suggest that you associated Derren Brown with homeopathy. I merely pointed out the irony of you using him in any way to defend your beliefs when he is quite outspoken against homeopathy. He is also very critical of the lack of evidence for NLP. Derren Brown does not need to be an expert in homeopathy to point out the ridiculousness of it. The little boy did not have to spend three years at college learning Imperial Invisible Textiles to point out that the Emperor had no clothes. You do not need to be an expert in Greek mythology to believe that Zeus is a fiction. Nor do you need to have studies a correspondence course from a made up homeopathy college to point out its basic premises are ridiculous. I would argue that having a diploma in homeopathy rules toy out from sensible conversations about homeopathy as you have obviously been stupid enough to fall for the charade.

I will leave the evidence for homeopathy up to those who believe it works. The onus is on them and in 200 years have failed in the most spectacular fashion. Can you think of any other 200 year old science with a similar disgraceful lack of evidence?

And as for you long post - it is too difficult to wade through. Perhaps you could cleary summarise you points in 2 or 3 sentences? Brevity and Clarity are our friends.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:04:01 GMT

Well, Andy, you just keep re-inforcing what I have said with regards to your posts all along. You make claims after claims after claims and you just are not up to logically refute anything I say. Instead, you avoid and evade and fall back into your own mantra's of self-deception and deception. Really quite obvious especially in this thread. Where does one learn such evasion tactics?

You and Harradine are my favorite SPIN doctors and when spin does not work anymore then you fall for personal insults. Do you not see how deep the hole is you have dug for yourself and your credibility?

So, now my favorite part: Debunking your nonsense:

You said: "I did not suggest that you associated Derren Brown with homeopathy."

Really, perhaps you should revisit the logical flow of your arguments.

You said: "I merely pointed out the irony of you using him in any way to defend your beliefs when he is quite outspoken against homeopathy."

I consider this to be backpaddling. Further to this, you claim that I defend my believes. I do not need to defend my believes. Against whom would I want to defend my believes? Are you attacking my believes? Be my guest. It is pointless because my believes are grounded in my own experiences and the results of such experiences constitute evidence for me personally.

You say: "He is also very critical of the lack of evidence for NLP."

Is he? And yet, he seems to be a master in using it and this is my observation. What one says and what one does are obviously two different things, would you not agree?

You say: "Derren Brown does not need to be an expert in homeopathy to point out the ridiculousness of it."

In other words, you are suggesting that anybody not knowing anything about something is capable of making a true assessment about it. This certainly underlines exactly your illogical style of arguing. Phew, this one blew up into your own face I am afraid.

Then you are diving into the realm of mythology in order to create non-existent associations. Oh boy, are you out of arguments big time.

You says: "I will leave the evidence for homeopathy up to those who believe it works."

I did not ask for evidence that homeopathy works (I already have that evidence), I asked for your evidence that it does NOT work.

You say: "The onus is on them and in 200 years have failed in the most spectacular fashion. Can you think of any other 200 year old science with a similar disgraceful lack of evidence?"

One really wonders how homeopathy has survived for over 200 years if according to your claims it does not work. I realise, however, that you have recognised it as a science and wonder whether you recently had a change of mind ?! Well, you know my argument about evidence. There is no such thing as evidence as far as I am concerned unless I can verify AND understand all the details of a trial including its outcome AND can verify all this through personal experience. Therefore, there can also not be a lack of evidence as far as I am concerned.

You say: "And as for you long post - it is too difficult to wade through. Perhaps you could cleary summarise you points in 2 or 3 sentences? Brevity and Clarity are our friends."

Are you saying that you have a mind that can only digest snippets? Are you not able to follow more complex thoughts and if that is so, how do you expect others to follow your arguments if you cannot even apply simple logic?

So, here again for the record:

If anybody tells you that there is a lot of evidence of this or that then what (s)he is really telling you is that there is an unspecified number of people who believe that this or that is true in specific circumstances. Unless YOU can verify and experience all aspects of this or that, there is no evidence of anything.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:02:48 GMT

Brandon. First of all, I am interested in what you are saying. This site has its fair share of strong opinions and although I disagree with you, you raise some pertinent points. You views are indicative, and therefore they are important. So lets be straight, I trained as a scientist and that's why I am interested. I don;t know how to use NLP and I have no affiliation with any pharmaceutical company. So lets be sensible for a while.

Ok, you beleive that there is no such thing as objective evidence and that, fundamentally, the best evidence is our own experience. What constitutes evidence is something scientists spend many years of their lives debating, so I think it is important to do so now.

On one level, you are correct. After all, if all we did was trust what we were told by a so called authority, then how could be ever truly know which authority to trust? As you say, TV? There is so much misleading nonsense there, then I (and all scientists I know) would strongly disagree.

But what about scientific evidence? Well, I know just how hard it is to actually know something. To have a scientific statement confirmed as true is much more difficult than any other form of truth to confirm. One has to have evidence. Good evidence. Evidence that one has verified via experiment, and which has been confirmed by repeated experiment and tested to destruction by ones peers.

Subjective experience, of course we have to at the most basic level trust only our senses and the like. But they can also be wrong. Someone could say "I smoked 50 fags a day for 40 years and it did me no harm" but of course, that would be very misleading if it was interpreted by others that smoking was not an unhealthy thing to do. That's is one example.

But this is why your points are indicative. Most people honestly cannot be expected to understand scientific evidence. When deciding what treatments is effective and safe, it would be nigh on impossible for your average joe to walk into The British Librbary and spend a month reading all the relevant scientific papers and come up with an informed view. They have not spent the years learning how to judge such evidence. How to tell bad science from good, how to see the wheat from the chaff as it were. So why on earth should you trust the process if you cannot understand it?

This is not an easy question for scientists to answer. We are so accustomed to the process, we forget how impenetrable and seemingly inconsistent the process seems, espeicially when people do become harmed from medicine, lots of them.

But lots and lots of people do get better thanks to scientific based treatments. Millions and millions of them are alive because of the process of whittling away through experiment and coming up with best evidence. Some die, some are made very ill. This must be very dissatisfying to those people whom it has failed.

So with all this confusion and frustration especially if one has suffered as a result, it must of course be very plausible to rely only on what works for one self. IMO this is what underlies most strong support for alternative medicine. People who have been burned by modern medicine, either because it has made them worse, or hasn't worked at all. I think scientist ignore this at their peril.

But what I object to though, is the deliberately misleading attempt by site such as this to convince people that scientific study ha no merit at all. To play on people's misunderstanding and mistrust. Convincing people that science is wrong, or cheerypick that research which agrees with their views and ignore everything else.

Its ok for me- I can interpret scientific data and judge good evidence and experiment from bad. I know what to trust and what to treat with suspicion. I do not have to trust the men in white coats. I can tell them they are wrong when I know they are.

In my view, this is an argument for greater scientific literacy across the board. My eutopia would be a world where we all were scientifically literate. That way, there would be no need at all to take anything on trust. One day.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

harradine — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:18:04 GMT

Bythe way, I am not saying that homeopathy doesn't work. Just that is doesn't work any better than placebo. Placebos appear to work too, that's why so much care is taken to determine which that medicines do actually work better than placebo. It is this that homeopathy, although tested, tested and restested many time, has failed to demonstrate.

So what? That's fine. Homepathy and placebo are one and the same. But that tells us something very interesting. There are some groups that respnd to placebo very well. I have heard a serious argument withing the medical community that perhaps placebos should be used to treat children for illnesses hwere they are known to work. If there are illnesses that have a very high response rate to placebo, such as depression, asthma, fibryomyalgia, chronic fatigue, pain, anxiety, etc, then why not use placebo since they have no side effects?

For a long time the argument has been that this is unethical where better treatments exist. I.,e. those that make more people get better than placebo alone. But there is a good case for treating children this way, if it works.

What saddens me is that homeopaths are among the best experts in placebo responses around, but yet they hide this light under a bushel, waste this knowledge and instead argue for s system of pseudoscience that it demonstrable false and therefore loose all credibility. I think this is a crying shame. One day, I hope, they will realise the potential strength they could have if they decide to explore to nature of placebo responses (which is not a dirty word), of which they are adept at delivering.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:53:09 GMT

Brandon - you really are struggling to keep up. Of course if you know nothing about a subject it would be unfair to criticise it. But the basics of homeopathy are freely available and can be understood readily. And it is quite possible to dismiss a subject when you spot the premises are false. You woud not be worrying about whether the wallpaper in the attic is lines up if the house has cracked foundations.

And that is why people like me and Derren Brown can so easily dismiss homeopathy - because it has no foundations. Its premises are absurd. And to top it off - there is no reliable objective evidence available. But, wading through your words, you appear to reject the idea of objective evidence and live in a world where only your personal experience counts. Its a handy philosophical position to take if you hold a daft position and do not want it to be challenged by reality - but that is all it is. I doubt you really practice it in real life.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:01:30 GMT

Harradine,

In principle, I am not against science as such. I also know a number of scientists who have high standard. They operate under the principle: I have a theory. I will test that theory. For this test, I need to find the best and most objective setup and procedures available. If the test confirms my theory, I have to retest and retest until I am satisfied that that my test and the outcome is correct. However, I still cannot be 100% sure because there might be factors which I do not know about. If my test does not pass then it is either because I chose the wrong test or I have not yet found a suitable setup and/or procedures or my theory is not correct.

A real scientist who tests independently and is not financed to achieve a certain result but simply to test will not claim that his results are absolut because he understands that he is on a mission of discovery. Every day, new things are discovered which nullify or substantially alter the results of previous experiments. The list of pharmaceutical drugs falling into that category is endless. Previously "proven safe" they all of a sudden are shown to be very harmful, having killed or devastated the lives of millions of people. It has to be understood that science is experimental unless a specific law of nature or the universe is really understood which cannot be said about medical studies. Far from it.

As far as you and homeopathy is concerned, let me make an analogy. 3000 years ago, people did not know anything about the laws of gravity. They could not explain it because they did not have the right tools and knowledge to understand it in a scientific way. And yet, I believe that also 3000 years ago, things fell to the ground when dropped. Nobody needed "evidence" because everyone could easily observe that this was the case.

You have no knowledge about how homeopathy works because you do not understand the superior principles governing the universe, our earth and our human body. You basically claim that just because you cannot find evidence with your current scientific tools to proof that homeopathy works, homeopathy does not work.

You will therefore understand that your inability to proof that homeopathy does not work (or does work) can never be superior to my personal experience, no matter how much "placebo" you scream. The placebo card is always played when something occurs that cannot be explained within a limited frame of mind. A saying of Schoppenhauer comes to mind:

"All great truths go through three stages: First, they are ridiculed, then they are violently opposed and finally they are recognised as self-evident".

The placebo effect is a real effect but again, you fail to understand how and when it applies. I recommend a book written by Bruce Lipton called "Biology of Belief". It is a very intersting book where he as a scientist explains his experiments and analysis of the power of mind when it comes to influencing our DNA and general health of cells.

An outright contradiction to what is being taught at medical schools. Do I know whether he is right? No, I do not. It just shows that for every one opinion, there is another one to the contray. Hence, there can be no "objective" evidence outside my own realm of experience.

To come back to my migranes and the years of modern medicine which could not help me. I find it amazing that modern pharmaceuticals are free from placebo effect. Nothing helped me. I finally got used to my migranes and just accepted that I had to live with them and it is amazing what one can get used to. Then I somewhere read that homeopathy might help. I thought, well, let's give it a shot but I was not very hopeful and I was sceptical myself. I was in for a surprise and did not even notice it until one day I realised that I had not had a migrane for a long time. I then tried homeopathy for all sorts of other things and found it to work really well. Placebo? Who cares? I am free of my migranes, it helps me in so many other medical situations, why do you think that I care? If using homeopathy somehow triggers a huge placebo response (which by the way is not my belief at all), then we know that placebo is the means by which homeopathy works. The case for homeopathy is therefore made and closed.

You see, you have provided me with all the arguments I needed to make a case for homeopathy by using your parameters and putting them into the correct logical context.

And you can be sure that I will be equally strict when somebody claims that there is "objective" medical evidence by means of a study which shows that homeopathy works. The only thing I can say that it does in my case and that somebody else has made a similar experience. Unless I can understand and verify that "evidence", there is no evidence as far as I am concerned and if others want to take it as such, they are welcome to do so because it is their business and not yours and not mine.

By the way, by continuing to slander the homeopaths in your subjective style, you actually provide a lot of credibility to them. It certainly prompts me and others to verify your claims, which I have not found any "evidence" for.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:20:28 GMT

Whatever you say, it is your personal opinion as you have no proof that homeopathy does not work. Read my previous post in response to Harradine.

As far as my personal "philosophy" is concerned: You might have noticed following my previous posts that my philosophy is not a theoretical construct upon which I base my experiences but that it is my experiences upon which my current philosophy is based. If at any time, verifyable and understandable "evidence" emerges that allopathic drugs are the answers to all our ailments and that homeopathy does not work, I might just change my philosophy. But until that day, there is no evidence for neither and especially not for your claims.

You cannot get passed my personal experiences because they are mine and not yours. As hard as it is for you to accept that this is just the way it is, so, just live with it.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:39:59 GMT

Whatever you say, it is your personal opinion as you have no proof that homeopathy does not work. Read my previous post in response to Harradine.

You cannot get passed my personal experiences because they are mine and not yours. As hard as it is for you to accept that this is just the way it is, so, just live with it.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:44:33 GMT

I just noticed that for some reason, my words appeared as if they had been written by Andy. Probably my mistake and appologies to Andy. I have therefore reposted my words using my name.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:20:22 GMT

Brandon, I have no proof that there are not unicorns in the world too. I do have very good reasons to presume they do not exist though. The same goes for homeopathy. I have very good reasons to believe homeopathy is a placebo treatment.

Your analogy with gravity is false. Yes, apples still fell to the ground before Newton, but people had no idea that this force was the same force that propelled the planets in motion around the Sun. The theory of gravity was a magnificently unifying theory that explained much much more than the speed with which apples fall. Homeopathy has failed to demonstrate any similar unifying idea. It has proposed ideas, but failed to show they are true. It you object to this, then show me the evidemce. You are also wallowing in the confusion of misunderstanding your critics. You say, "You basically claim that just because you cannot find evidence with your current scientific tools to proof that homeopathy works, homeopathy does not work.". No. Critics do not say this. They say "Homeopathy is totally implausible and incompatible with what we know about chemsitry, physics and biology. There is also no good objective data to show that there is an effect of homeopathy. It is therefore reasonable to conlcude that it is a placebo therapy".

You say "The case for homeopathy is therefore made and closed.". I would suggest that the only thing closed is your mind to the possibility that you may be wrong. I am open to being proved wrong. Some simple objective data showing homeopathic pills can produce reliable repeatable effects would change my mind.

The question is Brandon - what would change your mind? What experiment, in principle, would get you to doubt yourself? This is the crucial test of an open mind - being able to envision conditions where you might be proved wrong. The nature of your proposed test will be illuminating.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:54:51 GMT

Brandon you have used homeopathy and it has worked for you. You tried conventional medicine and it did not. It would be a lot to ask for someone in that situation not to half trust in homeopathy and less trust in conventional medicine. In your experience, homeopathy works and conventional medicine doesn't. Its a pretty much open and shut case.

But the problem with that logic is, when it comes to actually advising others what they should use, there is always the danger that your experiences might not apply. I gave the example of someone who smokes all their life with no harm. This obviously means that for them, smoking is harmless (except for their wallet). But this doesn't apply to other people. We know that smoking kills people. Millions of people. To apply ones personal experience of it being harmless to others would be a false logic, even it is seems very plausible to the lucky person who is resilient to smoking damage.

This is why we need to use a better system than simply "it works for me". That's ok for you, its works for you. But when tried out against a large groups of people, homeopathy does work, with exactly the same response rate as placebo.

That's why objective evidence is important. You are a case where homeopathy has worked just fine. But would that also be the case if you were one of a hunder people who tried it? One of a thousand? A million? Everyone? There would be a success rate which we could measure. Some people would get better and some people would stay the same, others would get worse. We could compare that with placebo effects and see how the compare. This has been done. Over and over and over again. And so far, the response rates are identical.

For medicines, things are different. Some people get better, some people get worse and some people get very ill of the side effects (of which placebo is free). But when you look at the overall response rate, it is much higher witgh evidence based medicines. That is how the earn the title, by definition. When a drug is licenses, the adverse effects is can cause are considreed against the greater number of people who recover compared to just giving them placebo. Hardly a magic bullet, but on the whole, more people live and recover than otherwise would.

But of course, this is little conciliation to that minority who either don't recover or actually get worse. In their experience, modern medicine is a pile of old rubbish. You can tell them that, they are just one of millions and everyone else got better. But what good is that if it didn't work for them? As you say, in their own experience, modern medicine is a failure.

That's why a LOT of research is going on right now to improve medicines so that this group of people shrinks and shrinks, so that the side effects are lesseed and lessens until one day (the hope is) we have treatments that work for everyone really well and have negligible side effects. That is the definition of the magic bullet, but we are not there yet.

One interesting development here is the understanding of the human genome and how it might be possible to tailor treatments to each patients depending on their genome. The irony is not lost on me that the alternative folks have been saying for years that treatments should be tailored to the patient. But in the next few decades it looks like it might be a reality.

Alternative medicine supporters almost always come from those people that medicine has failed. In their experience, it is a bad thing. But they ignore all the people that it really does work for (the majority) and forget that if we used only alternative medicines, a great many more people would die. Your experience does not apply to others.

But more than that, alternative medicine supporters appear seem to be mesmerized by the pseudoscience. They love to use the vocabulary of science, such as "quantum", but simultaneously reject its methods. That's a no no.

I am happy to explore all treatments, but really have no time for non-scientists talking about science to scientists that they do not understand. You talk about laws of the universe that no one understands. Well, if scientists don't understand them, you can bet that neither does someone with a diploma in homeopathy who has set up shop in the high street who has never set foot in a research lab.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Richard King — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:31:24 GMT

Andy: “Now, first off. Quantum theory does not support homeopathy. This is just false.”

I would have thought that an accurate statement would be along the lines of, “There is nothing in quantum theory that is known to support homeopathy as far as most physicists are aware.” Science is supposed to about rigour, is it not, including language?

Besides, those of us with scientific knowledge, as well as knowledge of a broader, higher, nature are aware that what we are dealing with is beyond quantum physics and that effects detected at the quantum level are secondary, or even tertiary; the effects at the physical level are tertiary, quaternary, or even more removed. That comes out in Korotkov and Levichev’s work, as well as people with whom I have had conversations about research and conferences I have attended.

I am well aware that there is a process called renormalisation, whereby many elements of mathematical equations are removed, made to fit, the results of experiments, i.e. forced to fit with the limited perception of the physical senses. The resulting “scientific explanations” are then used, by some, to “prove” their contention of reality. That is, essentially, a circular argument. There are and have been, including Richard Feynman, that renormalisation is a huge “funk factor”, a cheat; it just happens to fit with the materialistic bias.

“This is classic quack thinking - selectively cherry picking which pieces of evidence you like in order to confirm your axiomatic beliefs.”

Oh, dear; what a pity. Up to that point this was about the most mature discussion I had come across on the Internet. I followed many of the discussion on the Times Higher Education web pages on this type of subject; most notable for such word usage, especially the juvenile rantings of a certain Russian “lady”.

When the insults start flying reason has usually been abandoned and the argument surrendered, or is in the process of so doing.

Self styled sceptics appear to indulge in a great deal cherry picking to confirm their axiomatic beliefs as well. For example the “moving of goalposts” as far as evidence is concerned; claiming to find possible patterns in random numbers used by Rupert Sheldrake in his research; the shambolic “experiments” with Natasha Demkina (the Russian girl who was said to have been able to sense peoples’ ailments by non-physical means) – poor experimentation, dodgy statistics, hostile environment, multiple changes in variables at the same time, not even the beginning of an understanding of the subject; James Randi’s televised experiments – “science”, practised by a non-scientists in a television studio often “proving” what was wanted from the self-styles sceptic point of view, though occasionally notably good results as in dowsing with maps, quickly dismissed as down to chance, or similar; plus numerous other woolly approaches.

I doubt that many of the people you tend to denigrate are aware of the cheat nature of the renormalisation process.

Harradine: “I have decided. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about, but you are happy talking about it anyway.”

I am none to sure that you have a clue. Personal experience is evidence, though with, limitations. So called scientific evidence also has its limitations. There are no absolutes, it is all probabilities. The scientific approach attempt to increase the likelihood of evidence being correct; there is no guarantee at all that it is correct. In fact science make

”The problem arises that many such people seem to out their hands over their ears when told about placebo effects.”

As I wrote above:

”Mainstreams science is a crude approximation within certain limits; when it goes beyond those the anomalies arise, like the so-called placebo effect.”

”……. in areas of misunderstanding, ignorance, such as the so called placebo effect, leading to, essentially, ‘we have proved that does not work because, as far as we can tell, it has the same effect as something else which we do not understand’.”

Assigning something, an effect, dumping it in a “bin” marked “placebo”, which equals “something we do not understand” and trying to claim that proves anything at all is nonsense.

Andy: “Brandon - you really are struggling to keep up. Of course if you know nothing about a subject it would be unfair to criticise it. But the basics of homeopathy are freely available and can be understood readily. And it is quite possible to dismiss a subject when you spot the premises are false.”

On what basis are the premises of homeopathy false? Not fitting with the presumptions of mainstream science, low level science, does not constitute being false.

The premise of an underlying life force fits with the knowledge and experience of many of us. As a Healer I am aware of it on an almost daily basis. I am able to sense etheric fields with ease, when I wish to do so; sometimes it just happens anyway. For the curious I sometimes suggest they hold out a hand, at about was it height, plane of the palm vertical. Then, with my hands either side of theirs and two to three inches away, I set up a flow of energy, which the other person's feels, often whipping their hand away quickly and shaking it, somewhat surprised at the strength, of the tingling sensation in the hand.

The dilution side of homeopathy and what follows is outside my direct area of knowledge and expertise. However, as I am well aware that there is far more than just the physical, the homeopathic premises make far more sense to people like me than those whose knowledge and abilities are restricted to the physical.

Andy: “Your analogy with gravity is false. Yes, apples still fell to the ground before Newton, but people had no idea that this force was the same force that propelled the planets in motion around the Sun. The theory of gravity was a magnificently unifying theory that explained much much more than the speed with which apples fall.”

Whether the analogy is false or not, your understanding of mechanics is rather poor. Gravity is not the force that propels the planets in motion around the sun.

Gravity is “a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation gravitational force” – Merriam Webster Dictionary; though it is not known what causes it or where it arises from – the hunt for the Higgs Boson, etc.

Gravity maintains the planets in their orbits; it does not provide any propulsion. Even a falling mass is not propelled by gravity, as such, but exchanging one energy state for another; which brings us back to energy which is a complete unknown; at least to current physical world science, though some of us have more of an idea.

As far as I am aware a “gravity drive” has yet to be developed, at least in our very tiny part of the universe; the physical one, that is.

Although gravity “explained much much more than the speed with which apples fall” there are many things it did not explain, then along came Einstein, followed by quantum mechanics, then string theory, then … ; there is rather a lot we do not yet know, though you would never guess it by the attitude and tone of some people.

Andy (quoting “Critics” of homeopathy): They say “Homeopathy is totally implausible and incompatible with what we know about chemistry, physics and biology. There is also no good objective data to show that there is an effect of homeopathy. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that it is a placebo therapy”.

There was a time when the idea of a non-geocentric universe was totally implausible and incompatible with what as known at the time, similarly heavier than air flight, then the Astronomer Royal, in the mid-1950s, described spaceflight as “utter bilge” (Sputnik 1 was launched into “utter bilge” with a year or so) but then he was only a scientist it was engineers who made both flight and spaceflight attainable.

I suspect that any mechanism underlying homeopathy is, as I said before, probably at a similar level to Healing (in the Spiritual Healing, Reiki, etc., sense). We know that it is not at the level of current biology, physics, chemistry; at least not at the basic Newtonian mechanics level at which mainstream medicine is taught and practiced. That no more invalidates our understanding than Newtonian mechanics invalidates the Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics; it is at too basic, too crude a level to do so.

Numerous people waffle on interminably about placebo with out having a clue what it is. As I have already said, it comes down to saying something is invalid because it is the same as something that you do not understand. Much of the placebo effect is at the higher level because, unlike the basic science premise of separateness, assumed in relation to controls in experiments, etc., the separateness does not really exist, as has shown up in some experiments. That is just one of the false premises under which mainstream science labours.

The concept of placebo is also being somewhat discredited and brought into question, as reported in, for example, a recent New Scientist article; including suggestions that the notion be abandoned.

“I would suggest that the only thing closed is your mind to the possibility that you may be wrong. I am open to being proved wrong.”

Brandon’s mind appears more open than yours. His grasp of science and its methods appears to be greater as well.

I was not trained as a scientist, like Harradine, but as an engineer; a real one, not just someone who assumes the name, title. Unless you have knowledge of mechanics to a minimum of the Newtonian level, materials at least to atomic physics level, mathematics to higher calculus and field theory, etc., and are able to se them in practice, in combination with design, art, creativity, etc., you are not an engineer. It follows that engineers use science as part of what they do, application and research. Craft, technics, engineering, preceded science. Scientists could not do without engineers to build their instruments. Engineering is not part of science or applied science; science is part of engineering, it is the junior of the two. Hence, quite apart from my higher sensing ability of the last couple of decades, I was well aware of the limitations of science before my sixteenth birthday, am even more aware of its limitations these days and grew out of being besotted by science decades ago.

“This is the crucial test of an open mind - being able to envision conditions where you might be proved wrong.”

Exactly; I think it might be an idea if you start practicing.

Harradine: “Alternative medicine supporters almost always come from those people that medicine has failed.”

That is a fascinating piece of research you have done?!

On a personal basis I have had successful treatment from physical medicine as well as non-physical. One problem has receded dramatically, partly because I had inadvertently begun to understand it before I developed to the extent that I have “a foot in both worlds”, though it was also that “problem” that, at least in part, led to, became, my higher senses.

“But more than that, alternative medicine supporters appear seem to be mesmerized by the pseudoscience. They love to use the vocabulary of science, such as "quantum", but simultaneously reject its methods. That's a no no.”

Some talk gibberish and I have been blunt about that to such people. The pseudoscience tag is often used in the same way as “quack” and “woo”, simply a derogatory term without necessarily any substance. It also seems to be applied to certain areas of endeavour whether what is being done is science or not. Rupert Sheldrake, for instance, is accused of being involved in pseudoscience, largely because of his area, subjects, of research. From what I have read of his books, seen at a presentation, read on the Internet and elsewhere, his approach is definitely scientific.

It is perfectly possible to apply a scientific approach to virtually anything. Whether the scientific approach, itself, is the be all and end all, is quite another matter. It is not but that is beyond the reach and understanding of many, most (?), scientists. Anyway, these levels are beyond “quantum”, more in the string theory area (or beyond?), which is, perhaps, why Brian Greene, Professor of Physics and Mathematics at Columbia University, a strong proponent of String Theory, was due to give a presentation at the Energy, Intent and Healing Conference on 9th June 2008, organised by The International Society for the Study of Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine (ISSSEEM) on June 19-26, 2008 (http://www.issseem.org/conference.cfm).

On the other hand there are those who seem to be mesmerised by science.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:50:44 GMT

Ahhh. The classic reducto ad boredom technique of debating. So many fallacies. So little time.

Let me pick on a few: energy transfer between hands? Pure suggestion. Have you heard of Emily Rosa? Look her up and hew experiments in this field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa

Suggestion is very powerful. Next time you are sat on a sofa with friends, just start scratching and say "Are there fleas in this sofa?".

As for Brandon having a more open mind than me. Do not mistake credulity for open mindedness. If Brandon truley has an open mind, then let's see how he proposes to test his own beliefs. Is there the intellectual honesty to come up with a way of testing his beliefs? I doubt it. I am very clear how I would start believing in homeopathy. All someone needs to do is show an experiment where they can tell one pill from another in blinded circumstances. If anyone can do that, I am convinced.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:13:58 GMT

Andy,

I would suggest that you read my posts all over again and try to grasp the meaning of what I said. I know it is hard but might be useful. Your last post just shows that you have nothing to say anymore about neither my nor Richard King's posts, hence, you are back to square one.

Just again for the record: My personal repeat experience is all the evidence I need. Unless I can verify, understand and experience any so called "evidence" produced by a third party, I would be a fool if I stopped believeing what I have experienced first hand. It would be my surrender of reason to hearsay.

Otherwise, read my previous posts again. I have said everything I wanted to say.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:26:57 GMT

Harradine,

You, too, should read my and Richard King's posts again. I said everything I had to say and it all still stands. I can understand that yo might feel attacked by what I say since you are, according to your own claim, a scientist. I can assure you that I do not mean to attack scientists. However, you will grant that I decide what I accept as evidence and what not. It is my principle to not accept anything at face value which I cannot personally verify either by understanding or experience. This might be hard for you to accept. I wish you all the best.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:41:41 GMT

Yes Brandon, we are aware of your retreat into solipsism and nonsense. And it is nice that you articulate it so well now as it exposes why alternative medicine is so intellectually bankrupt. "It works for me" is essentially what you are saying. You privilege your own personal interpretation of your experiences over any other evidence. Thankfully we are not all like that or we would be all dying at age 40 - if we had been fortunate to make it past 5. Modern scientific medicine works precisely because many doctors and scientists have overcome their personal egotism and embraced objective ways of looking for evidence. Alternative medicine is just plain old fashioned authoritarian personal opinion - such as the form you retreat into.

I note you did not answer my simple question - what sort of evidence would change your mind? Can you contemplate such evidence? Is your mind as completely closed as you make out? Do you view your personal interpretation of experience as infallible? Because that is how you sound.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:32:18 GMT

Andy,

Read my posts as often as you need until you actually grasp what I previously said. You are now retreating into your typical spin and twist tactics combined with groundless accusations of others of what you are doing yourself. It speaks volumes about you.

As far as your question is concerend, the answer lies in one of my posts. Read them again and learn to think logically. It is never too late.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:23:54 GMT

Brandon. Are we reading the same thread? Where am I spinning and twisting? Where are my groundless accusations? As I said, I wanted to check your answers because you do not appear to have answered explicitly? I take it you cannot answer it? If your answer is all about your personal experience then - imagine - that you got negative experiences about homeopathy. How would you then reinterpret your ealier positive experiences. Would they be enough to change your mind? Could you ever imagine a set of experiences that would convince that you are mistaken. One of us is. I know how my mind could be changed. I am not convinced you do.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:25:07 GMT

Andy,

Now that you mentioned it, you are right, you must be reading a different thread. So, in order to help you out with your short attention span, here what I said on September, 25th 01:39:

"As far as my personal "philosophy" is concerned: You might have noticed following my previous posts that my philosophy is not a theoretical construct upon which I base my experiences but that it is my experiences upon which my current philosophy is based. If at any time, verifyable and understandable "evidence" emerges that allopathic drugs are the answers to all our ailments and that homeopathy does not work, I might just change my philosophy. But until that day, there is no evidence for neither and especially not for your claims."

To make above statement a little simpler because you did not seem to be able to understand it: Provide me with (or anybody) with verifieable and understandable "evidence" that allopathy works and homeopathy does not and I might change my mind if it does not run contrary to my own experience. By verifieable, I do not mean a link to some abstract study. After all there is a saying amongst mathematicians: "Don't believe in any statistics that you have not forged yourself".

You are like a child, Andy. You really seem to believe that there is evidence that homeopathy does not work. Well, I have got news for you: It does work for me and has gotten me out of the vicious cycle of allopathy.

Also, I recommend reading Richard King's posts above. He is very objective whereas I base my believes on what I can experience.

Remember, trying to get passed and attack somebody's personal experiences is like taking a spoon to a gun fight. Stop hopping around in circles and it might help you to calm down a little bit and use some logic.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:45:04 GMT

But Brandon, I might be excused because you did not answer my question. I was asking very specifically what sort of evidence would change your mind. I specifically asked about the nature of the evidence that would change your mind and you have still failed to answer. You ask for the evidence but fail to say what the nature of it would be to change your mind. Obviously, meta-analyses of trials will not do or you would be a non-believer. What would it be?

My answer is straightforward. Take any six homeopathic remedies and give them to a homeopath without them knowing which is which. If they can tell them apart then my mind will change. They can use whatever technique they wish - reproving, chemical, physical, dowsing, voodoo, whatever. Tell them apart and win. That no-one can do this suggests to me strongly that homeopathy is bunkum.

Brandon, to repeat - what is your experiment that would change your mind? How open minded are you?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:37:09 GMT

Andy,

I have given you my answer. There is no third party "evidence" that homeopathy does not work as far as I am concerned because my experience is that it works. So, why should I be trying to disprove something when I already know that it works? Are you not hearing what I am saying or can you not understand it? You make judgement about something that you do not understand yourself because you do not have the open mind required to accept that something might exist or work which you cannot not see or understand. This is your problem and not mine. You can think what you want about homeopathy. One thing you can not proof is that it does not work because I, amongst millions of others, have made the experience that it works.

It is the result that counts.

You are asking me to find a way to convince myself that something does not work which I already know that it works. How stupid is that? I know before I flick my light switch in my home that there will be light, so, I flick it and hey presto, there is light. Why would I waste my time to find "evidence" that there will be no light after flicking the switch when I know from experience that there will be light? You call that a closed mind? The only reason I have to look for "evidence" that flicking the light switch will not lighten up the room is when in fact there will be no light. Then, I have a reason to go and find out why there is no light. The light bulb might be burned out, there might be a power cut or any number of other causes. I still know that in principle, flicking the light switch will work once I have chosen the appropriate remedy. So, you are asking me what kind of evidence I would accept to be convinced that my light switch does not work? What do you know about my light switch? Now, if there is a blind man who has been blind from birth, will he accept that flicking a switch in my room will lighten it up? He might not even understand the concepts of light and darkness. You, Andy, are this blind man. Further, you are not only a blind man, you even have no first hand knowledge of my light switch and you claim that my light switch does not work. Do you see, that this is neither logical nor scientific?

Just replace the words according to this table in my analogy of my light switch above and perhaps you will understand:

my light switch = Homeopathy

Flick = take

light = improvement or disappearance of ailment

blind man = somebody who is not equipped with the appropriate tools or understanding

So, get your own thinking in order before you start asking others to surrender reason and intelligence.

I cannot answer a question to your satisfaction when this question is based on your lack of understanding of what I am saying and when this question is a result of a problem you have. You have that problem, not me. I am very happy with homeopathy which has turned around my health. It is a pity that you cannot benefit from my experience but that is just it: It is my experience and not yours.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Richard King — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:05:48 GMT

Andy: “Ahhh. The classic reducto ad boredom technique of debating. ”

As a decent text book is a good hundred times more than I the wordage I wrote, perhaps your easy disposition to boredom is the reason you seem to know so little science, even to the Newtonian level, it appears. It is shorter than some of the articles on “The Quackometer”. The usual double standards?

The self styled sceptics seem to have a love affair with quasi Latin, especially when it comes to logical fallacies, fallacies of argument, etc., though they do plenty of what they accuse others of themselves; double standards again? For example, they are against the ad hominem approach, except when they use it, as you do with “quack”, etc.; even your Web Site, or that to which your name links is “The Quackometer”, plus plenty of ad hominem in the tiles and text, of course.

There is no intent in debating technique, other than being thorough. In engineering, especially industries like aerospace, which is my principal background, slapdash experimentation, reasoning, reports and writing are not acceptable.

“So many fallacies. So little time. ”

There are no fallacies in the science, it is all completely standard and, until we get to tensors, is no more than would be expected of someone in the midst of the first year of an engineering or science degree; though maybe standards have fallen even further than I thought. I was well aware of almost all of that science over forty years ago. Actually, tensors are first year engineering as well, stress fields, etc., though I took me many years to catch up with that as to us it was just engineering mathematics; engineers do not call them tenors, physicists do after the engineering application. As you seem a little shaky on the nature of gravity, quite basic really, I do not think you are in much of a position to describe what I have written as fallacious.

There are no real fallacies in the rest of what I wrote, which is my understanding and experience. Though, since that appears to be well beyond your ken, you are in no position to judge whether it is fallacious or not. Here is nothing in the non-mainstream science that I wrote which conflicts with what is known from the mainstream point of view. As I said, it is similar to quantum physics and relativity not being in conflict with Newtonian mechanics, under a given range of circumstances. Once outside that range, Newtonian mechanics is inadequate and one of the others takes over. That of which I and others are aware is beyond the purview of mainstream science, as it currently stands, especially the incredibly low level of science put forward by yourself and similar people.

Time constraints seem to vary with who you are up against.

”Let me pick on a few: energy transfer between hands? Pure suggestion. Have you heard of Emily Rosa? Look her up and hew experiments in this field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa”

I suspect virtually everyone in the field who has a technical background has heard of that hoary old chestnut.

Quite apart from numerous faults pointed out by others, there is an extra obvious one to me. The overriding predominance of energy flow is from the right hand, into the left hand. The right hand is the “sending hand”; the left hand is the “receiving hand”. Hence the assumption that sensitivity of the hands is equal is, as you would presumably say, fallacious, or might do if you were at a sufficient level of knowledge and understanding.

When I set up an energy flow between my hands it is always from the right to the left. My technique is to bring the fingers as close to a point as convenient with that shape directed at my left palm. Then it is simply a matter of tuning in, a slight shift of consciousness, and visualising a laser-like beam of green-white (personal preference, experience, etc.) light flowing from my right hand to my left, over a gap of four to six inches.

This all came up when I gave a presentation, on my forthcoming book, at Havant Literary Festival last Sunday. My book is about my experiences, though I included some science to put matters in perspective, though putting science in perspective as well, though most of my audience was sufficiently aware to know that many in the science field seriously overrate themselves, along with the amateur “hangers on”. I also explained why science is “junior” to engineering; that also went down rather well.

Incidentally, on a rudimentary experimental basis there is no perceivable attenuation of the energy whatever is between my hands, a wooden door, or table top, a sheet of glass, aluminium, steel, etc.; which is what I would tend to expect, given the nature of the energy, the nature of what is perceived as physical reality and their relationship to each other.

I suspect you were lost a couple of paragraphs ago but other readers may well not be.

There are numerous other problems with Emily Rosa’s so-called experiment, “noise” being one of them. You do not, usually, carry out sensitive sound experiments in a noisy environment, or experiments involving low strength electromagnetic fields in an environment where there is a great deal of other electromagnetic radiation. So, it makes no sense to carry out an experiment involving higher level senses in circumstances where there will be a great deal of “noise” at that level. I would not have expected Emily Rosa to necessarily be aware of that but the self avowed scientists who place so much credence on her experiment should be well aware, except that the results fitted with what they wanted them to be; “never mind the quality, feel the width”.

There are comments on the Emily Rosa experiment in “Spiritual Healing – Scientific Validation of a Healing Revolution” Daniel J. Benor, M.D., forward by Larry Dossey, M.D. (2001), pp 270-275, though I doubt they will be to your liking. The book is just short of six hundred pages with fifty page bibliography of research papers, articles, etc. if you can do anything with it other than “morph into a duck”, I will be extremely surprised.

In “Therapeutic Touch: Responses to Objections to the JAMA Paper by Larry Sarner” (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ttresponse.html) the response to objections that “. Emily's experiment was worthless because it wasn't double-blinded. The authors are biased against TT and any experimental results reported by them must be discounted. Emily's parents put her up to this so they could destroy TT.” were “Just how was this bias supposed to have its effect on the experimental outcomes? Yes, it is important to control for "experimenter bias," but not foolishly so. You don't do it just to be doing it, there must be a reason for doing so. Critics have yet to come up with any valid reasons for double-blinding, and some of the reasons put forward by critics are more bizarre than what was being tested., etc.” In other words the usual double standards. Double blind randomised controlled trials are required to prove homeopathy, acupuncture, healing, etc., but when it comes to the wished for result from “the other side” double blind RCTs are not necessary. A single experiment b a child in uncontrolled conditions is deemed to prove a negative?! That is the appallingly low standard of science usually applied by the simplistic mainstreamers.

In contrast:

“The 3-fold Way and Consciousness Studies” by Konstantin Korotkov and Alexander Levichev

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/korotkov_3-fold.pdf.

Alexander Levichev Homepage: http://www.levichev.com

Alexander Levichev Vita: http://math.bu.edu/people/levit/webcv-00.html

Konstantin Korotkov: http://www.energywellnessstudies.com/about/faculty.asp#Kor

You offer a nine year old child’s crude experiment in front of television cameras. I offer a paper by biophysicist and mathematician (twenty-five pages on chronometry, quantum dynamics, other space times, etc.) representing an area of research from which numerous other papers and research with fascinating correlations has stemmed. The problem is that it tends to substantiate an area of advanced science which is anathema to the simplistic Newtonian level to which you adhere and, probably, about all that you can grasp, understand.

credulity: readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

open mindedness: receptive to arguments or ideas (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

closed minded: Not ready to receive to new ideas (WordWeb Online Dictionary)

I have been a Chartered Engineer for forty years. As already mentioned, one of the things we deal in is precision with words, even to the extent of double checking definitions, as above; I frequently write on my commuter with several windows and tabs open at once, researching as I write and not just double, triple, checking definitions. I am far too experienced and knowledgeable to make such low level errors as confusing credulity and open mindedness.

you are very credulous when it comes to science, even, especially(?), of the crude, basic, low level kind; Emily Rosa’s experiment, for example. I did say that much of the sceicne proposed, brought to bear, by people at your level was of the basic, early school variety; quod erat demonstrandum (Q.E.D.) – that is real Latin, not the quasi-English, mangled Latin you used, “reducto ad boredom”; is that really your level of science, language and intellect?

On the other hand you do seem to fit the definition of close minded, at least in the sense of not being able to contemplate anything much beyond what is readily proven by very basic physical science.

Andy: “Modern scientific medicine works precisely because many doctors and scientists have overcome their personal egotism and embraced objective ways of looking for evidence.”

So there is no egotism in mainstream scientists believing that science is the only way to knowledge and understanding; quite apart from the logical nonsense involved if science is used to prove science, etc. Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh do not seem to have overcome there egotism, certainly not if their book “Trick or Treatment” and the way they refer to other people in it is anything to go by, quite apart from it being poor science and poor logic, page by page.

Andy: “Alternative medicine is just plain old fashioned authoritarian personal opinion - such as the form you retreat into.”

There is far more to it and far more evidence available than you seem to realise, or, just perhaps, do realise but it is an embarrassment to your materialist, low quality Newtonian “science” prejudices. I hesitate to say that what you often put forward as real science or logic, at least above what I have previously described as the early school level; it really does come across as that bad, even allowing for the gravity “slip up” above. The best response you could manage to my real science was “So many fallacies. So little time.” Add that to the rants and juvenile level of “The Quackometer” and that is about the measure of those people with which we are dealing.

“alternative medicine, research” on Google: http://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_en-GBGB294&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=alternative+medicine,+research

For example:

Complementary and alternative medicine, University of York

http://www.york.ac.uk/healthsciences/research/comaltmed.htm

Developing Research Strategies in CAM, Conference, University of York

http://www.york.ac.uk/healthsciences/gsp/themes/cam/camconf.htm

Basic Internet research is really that easy. That is even with prefacing a search with “pdf”, “.ac.uk”, “.edu”, etc. to keep the results to “real research”. Obviously, I do not bother with Wikipedia and the other sites that use information from Wikipedia as the level of science and reasoning is at lower school level, or worse. Similarly, with the self styled sceptic, pseudo-sceptic sources and any where juvenile terms like quack and woo are use; the people involved are rarely of a high enough calibre, scientific capability, or maturity to gain anything much from such “sources” of information.

However, given your admission to no great scientific background, Andy, I am not sure you would get very far with any of that.

On your “The Quackometer” Web Site, Andy, about yourself “Who Am I and What are My Qualifications?” (http://www.quackometer.net/faq/2007/06/who-am-i-and-what-are-my-qualifications) “My name is Andy Lewis and I am the mad inventor of the quackometer. I also write the blog.” and “A common response to my posts has been to question my qualifications for writing. This is known as an ad hominem attack and I will always try not to engage.”

That justifies, confirms, my assessment of your scientific knowledge and ability. It also brings up some quaint “logic”.

Also on your “The Quackometer” Web Site, Andy, is “The Epiphenomena of Quackery” (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/09/epiphenomena-of-quackery.html) about the European Quantum Energy Medicine Conference 2008 about which is written “This diverse and magnificent epiphenomenology is well explored in this blog.”

”The first big giveaway is of course the use of the language of quantum mechanics in a medical context. It's a sure sign of quackery. We really need not go any further to come to this conclusion. Of course, the delegates here will tell us that we are stuck in some 'Newtonian paradigm' of medicine and the 'energy medicine' is the future. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?”

In contrast to your assertions of quantum mechanics plus medicine equalling quackery: “The Visual Quantum Mechanics project is developing instructional materials about quantum physics for high school and college students. Instructional units and/or courses are being created for high school and college non-science students, pre-medical and biology students, and science and engineering majors. Each set of the teaching-learning materials integrates interactive visualizations with inexpensive materials and written documents in an activity-based environment.” (http://web.phys.ksu.edu/vqm) Note that it is for “pre-medical and biology students” as well as others.

Virginia Tech, Wake Forest University, Medical Physics PhD Track, medical Physics Track Courses, Required Core Courses, Physics and/or Biomedical Engineering, PHYS 741 Quantum Mechanics (http://www.sbes.vt.edu/academics/programs/tracks/phd_medicalphysics.html).

I found those, just as examples, within a couple of minutes via the most basic Internet research. Maybe you should try some research of your own, though then you would find much that you would not be to your liking, comprehension, or both; that would never do.

Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMRI) scanners are used in medicine.

In other words, there is no disjunction between quantum mechanics and medicine; logically there cannot be as we are composed of atoms; as well as other structures, admittedly, but they are beyond your present level of understanding.

In the same article, “The homeopaths show up too. 'Dr' Jeremy Sherr is here to talk about how magic 'energy' sugar pills can treat AIDS in a talk entitled, "Homoeopathy for AIDS in Africa: An Energy-Information Treatment.".” Having “Dr” in quotation marks seems to mean that you are questioning whether he is a “real Doctor”; never mind what a “real Doctor” is, for the moment. Having checked his background, I have no knowledge of the institutions he has been involved with, or their standards, though he is an Honorary Professor of a valid Chinese Academic Institution, even you do not happen to like the subjects they teach; which is an assumption, though a valid one, I would have thought, given your predilections. However, the main point is that you seem to be questioning his right to the title of Doctor. You claim that questioning your qualifications is an ad hominem attack on you, so, why question the qualifications of anyone else; logical inconsistency? Is asking a surgeon who is about to operate on you what his qualifications are an ad hominem attack? If you have your house redecorated and ask the tradesman if he is up to the job, is that an ad hominem attack?

Later in that article “But if you are still wondering about this and thinking they might have a point about quantum energy being the future of medicine, what is the big giveaway that this is a cargo cult?” and “The answer can be summed up in one word: data.”

You judge a conference without, apparently attending. Telepathy? Remote viewing?

I have attended conferences on such subjects, matters, where there has been discussion in some presentations, a wealth of data in others; quite a normal pattern for those of us who do attend such events, whether mainstream or otherwise.

Doctor: A real Doctor is a person who has attained the highest degree that a university can award. A medical Doctor is merely an honorary title for someone who has gained a first degree in a medical subject; which leads to, these days, it seems, someone who has a first degree in dental surgery being able to claim the title of Doctor.

On the Continent, as well as elsewhere, “Ing” is rated equivalent to a medical Doctor; Ing is equivalent to CEng in the U.K. Academically and professionally, I am, therefore, equivalent to a medical Doctor. I gained my CEng when only a Bachelor’s Degree was needed, plus a few extras and relevant experience; nowadays a Master’s Degree is often required, though I have that anyway. The last time I checked, I outranked all but one of the staff at my local health centre.

That is why I am well able to understand and handle the science involved in non-mainstream therapies, at least on a general basis and to a reasonably high level, if not the mathematics of Alexander Levichev.

The epiphenomenalists hold "that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events." (Noodle Food, Epiphenomenalist Nonsense, http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/09/epiphenomenalist-nonsense.shtml).

Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism)

In other words, epiphenomena is simply a “flowery” way of saying “it is all in the mind”. Being so wedded to science, Andy, you are, of course, able to provide proof of such a contention, are you not? As far as I am aware no-one yet knows what “mind” is, much like energy.

Brandon: “Also, I recommend reading Richard King's posts above. He is very objective whereas I base my believes on what I can experience.”

I am very objective when it comes to my science side, or when I choose to apply it. On the other hand I have somewhere between considerable and vast experience as well. For example, in term of my higher senses my experience is in the low thousands of hours; at least fifty evenings a year at healing groups, with two hours, at least, tuned into the higher levels on each occasion, for seventeen years – almost two thousand hours in those circumstances alone. There is no clash whatever, with my scientific knowledge and experience, which is, clearly, considerably greater than certain other contributors in this discussion.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

harradine — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:03:43 GMT

"I am very objective when it comes to my science side, or when I choose to apply it."

So a subjective element

Richard what do you mean by your "higher senses"?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:14:07 GMT

Brandon, perhaps you might like to try these substitutions:

my light switch = Dog

Flick = barking

light = postman goes away

yes, you make the same error that a dog does when it believes its barking makes the postman go away. it is an example of an inductive error. Not all correlations mean causation. Yes - a light switch can cause a light to go on. But a dog's bark does not make a postman leave. Nor does swearing at red traffic lights have any effects. Taking homeopathic pills at the height of a headache does not mean that they cause the headache to subside. Headaches subside. Postmen go next door. Traffic lights change.

Indeed, your whole post could make a wonderful case study for students to study logical fallacies. I must say - marvelous work.

You see. It is all rather simple. One of us is wrong. You claim to have experience that convinces you, but you may well be mistaken. I too may be mistaken. One of us if holding deluded beliefs. How do we tell who is right? Who is the most open minded in this quest for truth? I believe homeopathy to be quackery because a) it is thoroughly implausible and b) the totality of the evidence suggests that is is no different from a placebo. However, I would change my mind if certain experiments were performed that showed a genuine effect. I am open minded to that change. All I need is the evidence.

By contrast, you Brandon, cannot conceive of any experiment or evidence that might convince you that you are mistaken. Your mind is closed to the possibility of being wrong. You have decided what you want to be true and then try to shoehorn your experience into that belief. You are, by definition, closed minded. There appears to be no other way to put this.

Now, of course, being open minded does not mean that I am right. But I am sure it means that my ideas are more robust as I have tested them with possible contradictory evidence and ideas. I test my beliefs because I am open minded. I see no evidence that you honestly do the same. Instead of seeking ways to show that you may be wrong, you only seek ways to prove you are right - and that is the road to delusion.

You say "You are asking me to find a way to convince myself that something does not work which I already know that it works. How stupid is that?". That "stupidity" is called science. And science is what stands between real knowledge and delusion. Richard Feynman put all this so well when he said of science "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that."

You might find the rest of his essay interesting...

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:38:56 GMT

Wow Richard - so much stuff. You dismiss the 9 year olds experiment. But it has a simple message that no-one has refuted. Emily tested the Theraputic Touch according to claims that they made. All participants believed they would succeed. They failed. No one has shown an experiment where such experiments actually work. Your own claims about left-hand right-hand flows would believable if you had the slightest objective evidence to show that it works.

Richard, I think it comes down to the observation that you are far too impressed with authority. You make several claims to your own authority (regarding qualifications and experience) and point to those russian papers that use the solace of quantum theory to bamboozle. What is written in the first Koroktov paper is pure nonsense. Do you understand any of it? Could you paraphrase each paragraph? I doubt it. The paper is constructed to impress the easily pleased. That is why quacks like quantum theory - it makes them sound clever in a way that cannot (easily) be contradicted by their critics and can be adored by the easily lead. Even the non-physicist can get an idea that the paper is rubbish by noting how each paragraph does not follow the previous. There is no development of ideas. It is just a continuous stream of quantum jargon that signifies nothing. Of course, there is the quackery payload at the end - but few casual readers will notice that the conclusions have nothing to do with the preceding gobbledegook. It is a "Chewbacca defense" of quackery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defence#Chewbacca_defense

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:03:59 GMT

Again, you twist, deceive, lie, distort and put things into people's mouth which they have not said all in order to convince others not to try homeopathy. You are trying to interfer with people's free will by claiming that science has all the answers. Science is servant, not master. As I said, it is your problem.

By the way, your substitues in my example do not work because they are logically flawed. A dog and a post man has no direct connection like a light switch and the bulb via electrical wiring and electricity. Logic is based on mathematics. Set theory might help you which by the way is also used in order to analyse statements as to whether they are true or false. Study set theory before you make any claims because you are starting to look funny on this forum. Just admit that you have no tools to proof that homeopathy does not work. And if homeopathy triggers a huge placebo effect in millions of people helping them with their ailments, well, then that is the way it works. Case closed for homeopathy.

You cannot get passed my personal experience and that of millions of others. Live with it. Accept it. All you do is trying to attack the credibility of those who know that homeopathy works. You are unable to proof that it does not work.

Evidence is what can be verified, understood and experienced. Anything else is third party hear say which is always inferior to one's first hand experience.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:04:45 GMT

It seems that I made the posting mistake again.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:05:03 GMT

Andy,

Evidence is what can be verified, understood and experienced. Anything else is third party hear say which is always inferior to one's first hand experience.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:48:21 GMT

Brandon - my example is not logically flawed. It is making it obvious that correlation is not the same thing as causation. The postman leaves when the dog barks. People get better after taking homeopathy sugar pills. Lights turn on after flicking the switch. Only one of these is due to a direct causal effect. (As far as we know). People getting better after taking sugar pills is almost undoubtedly a combination of placebo and regression to the mean.

But it looks like you might be conceding that homeopathy is just a placebo? That is a step in the right direction. If that is so, then it follows that everything about like-cures-like and dilution and succussion is just the obvious mumbo-jumbo it appears to be. The only interesting question then appears to be how should homeopaths practice with this knowledge that they are just dishing out placebos? Don't you think?

And note that I have noticed that you have still failed to explain the nature of the evidence that would change your mind? If you are still wavering about the placebo nature of homeopathy, what experiment would tilt you one way or another? Can you think of that? You keep banging on that your personal experience is so important to you. What personal experience would suggest homeopathic pills have real theraputic effects rather than just looking like they do due to placebo, regression to the mean, wishful thinking and so on?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:10:53 GMT

Andy,

I did not say that Homeopathy IS a placebo. I said that even if it was a placebo, the end result would still be the same: It works. You seem to have difficulties grapsing the fine nuances in the language.

Have you analysed homeopathic pills? Have you first hand knowledge that they consist of sugar? What about those remedies in form of drops? You know nothing about homeopathy and that makes you a pretender. You do not know what you are talking about and take third party hearsay as evidence, which is illogical, unscientific and outright stupid. You then ask me to do the same. You have subrogated reason, knowledge and understanding to third party hearsay which you call "scientific evidence". Poor you.

Also, you have testified to your own incompetency of thinking logically. You said:"It is making it obvious that correlation is not the same thing as causation." Are you saying that just because you do not understand causation in a particular matter, correlation is automatically invalid? A thousand years ago, people did not understand how birds could be flying through the air. Following your "logic", it would mean that there were no birds flying. Pretty stupid, wouldn't you think? People did pretty good even before modern science appeared. Science is a tool to find out HOW something works for better understanding. You are putting forward the notion that something does not work because it cannot be scientifically proven. Again, a completly illogical way of thinking. Some things just work and I do not really care how because I have more important things to do. I know homeopathy works and that's it.

Andy, you still claim that I have not answered your question. I have answered it several times and just because you do not understand my answer does not mean that you have to repeat yourself asking the same question. You have to get it into your head, slowly but steadily but hopefully for good that there is no evidence that can change my mind about homeopathy unless three things come together:

1. I can verify the test

2. I can understand the test

3. The outcome of the test does not run contrary to my experience.

You will hopefully clearly understand that such a test cannot exist. It is impossible to prove that something does not work. There is also no proof that God does not exist.

Even if one cannot prove that God exists, it still does not mean that he does not exist.

Just because you fail to understand how homeopathy works from your very limited point of view does not mean that it does not work. I believe that you are incapable of understanding what is being said here. So, for your record:

- HOMEOPATHY WORKS AS FAR AS I (like millions of others) AM CONCERNED.

- ALL UNVERIFYABLE, NOT UNDERSTANDABLE THIRD PARTY "EVIDENCE" IS HEARSAY ONLY.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:35:22 GMT

I love the inherent contradictory stand of your assertions that 'Homeopathy works as far as i (like millions of others) am concerned' and 'third party evidence is hearsay'.

Despite your protestations, you have not answered my question unless you answer is 'No. I cannot think of any evidence that would change my mind'. That is fair enough. You have a closed mind and think yourself infallible. OK by me.

You also make straw men arguments. I have never claimed that things cannot exist if they do not have a scientific explanation. Such a belief would clearly be absurd. We do not have a full psychological explanation as to why so many people believe daft things like homeopathy. But they do - and I do not deny it.

As for my personal investigation into homeopathic pills. Yes, I have done some tests. I went into Boots and looked at the labels of some pills and they said "Ingredients: lactose/sucrose". That would make them sugar pills, would it not? Now homeopaths believe that there is some sort of magic going on inside the pills. That may be true. I cannot disprove it. Nor can I disprove the sugar pills are full of tiny invisible pink unicorns. But given all human knowledge (except yours, Brandon, obviously) can only ever be partial and incomplete, the only rational conclusion to come to is that the pills do not contain pink unicorns or any other magic ingredient as this contradicts well established facts about the nature of matter and energy.

Now, you could show some evidence that the pills do have some magic ingredient. You could possibly tell one magic sugar pill from another then. And as I have said - my mind would then change. I would accept the potential for homeopathy to be true. But in two hundred years, no homeopaths has ever done this. Nobel prizes would be awarded. James Randi's million handed over. Nothing. They are sugar pills and act as placebos. You are so close to recognising this.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:04:58 GMT

Andy,

I, like millions of others, have made the personal experience that homeopathy works. There is nothing contradictory about this. Learn to think logically.

I have given you more answers than you deserve but not the one you want to hear which is your problem and not mine. The moment homeopathy stops working for me on every single occassion, I will change my mind that it does not work for me any longer. However, I would never claim that it does not work for others either, because I have no first hand knowledge of such a fact and I would also not know why it has stopped working for me.

To date, it has worked very well, exceeding my wildest hopes.

So, you did some investigation into honeopathy by reading the lables? Some kind of investigation that is. Look up the word "ingredient" in a dictionary. It might help you to understand a little better.

You said: "You have a closed mind and think yourself infallible". I have no idea how you come to such a conclusion. You are the only one claiming this in this forum and I am not the only one here who attests that you are guilty of what you blame on others. I think that you should plan for some time of self-reflection.

A personal experience is exactly what it is: personal. You try to deny me my own experiences and that makes you a fanatic or some other kind of control freak.

I, at least, had the courage to try something else after allopathy has failed me miserably. I have found more than what I was looking for and you cannot bear that for whatever reason.

I have no need to show evidence because my evidence would be just hearsay to anybody else. That would be against my belief and would run counter to my intention to make people aware of the fact that what pharma companies claim to be evidence is really just hearsay as far as everybody else is concerned. People should trust their own instincts in my opinion but everybody is of course free to do what they want to do. I am just sharing my experiences without claiming that they are infallible.

Andy, you either have a lot of work to do for yourself or you are a paid pharma shill. If the latter is the case (and only you know whether this is so), you should be ashamed of yourself trying to put people's health at risk without any first hand knowledge. Think about that, think about it.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:32:46 GMT

So, Brandon, because I think homoeopathy is a placebo treatment, then I am a pharma shill? That is stooping pretty low in the discussion. This looks like a cheap diversion to try to avoid simple questions.

Let's look at this another way. You say homeopathy has worked for you. I do not doubt that. I do doubt your explanation though. I believe you have witnessds a combination of placebo/regression to the mean/wishful thinking. You undoubtedly would deny this.

But these are not trivial questions. Illness means people suffer and our common humanity would wish to minimise this suffering, both personally and globally. The need to find acceptable cures that are affordable, safe and effective is undoubtedly one of the most important quests we can set ourselves.

But your solipsistic philosophy cannot help us here. You retreat a stance where only personal experience counts. How can we then answer the big and important questions as to how best to reduce the amount of suffering in the world due to illness and disease? How we can we reduce Malaria and HIV deaths around the world? How can we reduce cancer rates and cure those that cases happen? It is not clear how you would be able to convince anyone that homeopathy is the answer with the stance you take - "I have no need to show evidence because my evidence would be just hearsay to anybody else". Do you really advocate a person by person "see what works for you" approach. Would you really recommend that to a child with leukaemia and tough luck if you do not find what works for you first time? Would you really ship homeopathic malaria pills en masse to Africa and just hope it works for them? How many deaths would it take before you thought again?

To answer those question requires us to step away from the personal and try to objectively find answers that are compelling and actionable. How should we spend our tax money on the NHS? What support should we be giving to Africa to alleviate malaria? You have made it impossible for yourself to take part in that discussion.

And this is why I argue with people like you. Maybe other people reading this will have minds open to bigger possibilities. They may even have the courage to explore how they might be wrong in previously deeply held beliefs. You do not have that courage. You cannot contemplate how you might be wrong.You will not test your beliefs and you just bluster at me and hope for the best.

Believe me Brandon. I am thinking. And my thoughts are that much alternative medicine is a menace as it fails to be self critical and introspective enough to be considered mature enough to be let near ill people. You make my case self evident and I thank you for that.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Richard King — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:14:13 GMT

Harradine: “ "I am very objective when it comes to my science side, or when I choose to apply it."

So a subjective element”

I do not spend my days interminably in “science mode”. Apart from the equipment used where does science come into me taking photographs at my granddaughter’s first birthday party last weekend, for example, or our recent visits to Chichester Festival Theatre.

There is subjectivity in everything. I endeavour to reduce it as much as possible in the science context while being well aware of the limitations of science. I am an engineer and engineering predates science, though uses it, along with theory things.

“Richard what do you mean by your "higher senses"?”

Senses on a higher plane than the physical, in the areas postulated by Levichev and Korotkov; their work having produced fascinating correlations, as have experiments by others based on their work.

Senses as described by Ann Brennan (http://www.barbarabrennan.com/welcome/introduction.html) who is a former NASA scientist; Masters level at that time.

Senses whereby I was aware that when my mother became terminally ill towards the end of June 2004, I , more or less, knew she would be with us, in the physical world sense, for some time more than the medical people supposed.

Senses whereby Sylvie, my fellow Healer and editor of my book, her discarnate husband and my discarnate partner/colleague can have perfectly lucid four way conversations. (Discarnate means tat they do not have physical bodies at this time, though have had, will have, at others.)

Senses whereby I was a little surprised to, apparently confirm the validity of a device for showing a representation of the human aura. It was not, strictly, science, engineering, all the way through in that what was sensed from the subjects hands was compared with the aura perceived by someone sensitive enough to do so. A large number of subjects were thus sends, physically and non-physically to build up a large database, so that future physical sensing of subjects drew on the database to represent an aura in each case. Far from ideal but a possibly reasonable interim step. I still doubted the approach. However, I watched as two people sat to have their hand sensed an aura represented. With first person, a middle aged man, as he sat there I saw a blue aura, mainly sky blue; his picture came up on the screen, then, a few seconds later the machine showed his aura as blue. With the second person, a young woman, I saw a predominantly green aura; then her picture came up on the screen, followed by her aura; green as I had seen, sensed.

At a public healing session, I sensed that a man to whom I was giving healing had a very fiery base chakra. It turned out that he had suffered a serious gastric problem sometime before, as well as having a heavy steel plate fall and smash his pelvis.

At the same event I asked an elderly lady if she had a problem with her left arm; there was an “anomaly” in the middle of the upper arm. She said she had not. Half an hour later she was back, being “towed” by another woman, who turned out to be her daughter. Obviously, there had been a conversation about what I had said as the daughter told me,

”You were right, she broke that arm a few years ago.”

During my early days in healing a young woman was practicing on me with an experienced healer looking on. Although I had my eyes closed and, like me, the woman was a non-contact healer (apart from “tuning in” and “closing”, virtually no physical contact), I felt what was loosely, like towels being wrapped round me in various directions, warm comforting. Afterwards I asked if she had stated in a particularly place, moved in a particular direction, then another, another, and so on, describing where I thought she had been. She reacted, looked, somewhere between surprised and startled and asked how I knew. “He could feel it,” was the knowing response of the experienced healer.

In the mid-1990s, my wife, Jo, had a hysterectomy. I left her at the hospital and went home and lay on the bed to be with her in my way. I saw my discarnate colleague with her, in “healing mode”, for a specific period, sitting with her in a contended way for a while after wards; too much detail for here. Jo was up and showering herself less than forty-eight hours after the operation, home and walking upstairs, bathing herself ninety-four hours after the operation. Later discussion confirmed a match with the time of the operation, etc., and what I saw.

Sue, a healer colleague with whom I am particularly in tune was giving me some practice healing at a Healers’ Support Group meeting. Afterwards, I said I was aware that she was not doing the healing alone; the energies were very strong and I felt the presence of others as well as seeing them. I described the principal other person as tall, dark hair, dark skin, beard and moustache, robes, turban with a conical centre, though with a flat top.

“Yes, that’s my dervish. What about my Chinaman.”

“He’s over in the corner,” I said.

“That’s right.”

Two somewhat less experienced healers who had already finished their practice looked on a little wide eyed and startled.

You do get used to it, after a while, a few years.

In the very early days, while in a group, linking with other groups around the world, at the higher level, of course, even inexperienced me was seeing very rough seas crashing against jagged rocks at the bottom of a steep cliff; it transpired that group was in a castle at the top of a cliff in Iceland.

… and so on, and so on, and so on. The best part of twenty years experience of such experiences, if you see what I mean, or even if you do not.

A corrupt Council has been putting it about for years “Don’t get involved, his marbles are loose” (see The Well-Wisher), though that has nothing to do with that side of me but me knowing too much in another sense, deception, false accounting, fraud, misappropriation of European Funds, false professional qualifications, etc. (see News Blackouts, Princes and Kings); they wrecked a project I spent five years setting up and were involved in serious fraud in other areas – I just happen to know too much and they do not want a “holiday” at the State’s expense. Under different circumstances I would have been an Associate Professor at a West London University from about 2000 – they are well aware of my non-engineering side, as is the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and my local Chamber of Commerce, among many others. Hopefully, I will not be delayed too much longer and can do some of the research I wish to be involved in. There are basic experiments which can be done to substantiate the existence of higher energies, auras, etc.

Andy: “Wow Richard - so much stuff. You dismiss the 9 year old’s experiment. But it has a simple message that no-one has refuted.”

The simple message of the Emily Rosa experiment is how limited crude science is. It has been refuted (Daniel Benor’s book, etc.) but that does not it with the limited science of the mainstream. You also overlook the obvious that s single experiment proves nothing and it takes infinite experiments with the same result to prove a negative; very basics science; very basic logic.

A child’s single experiment suits your beliefs, prejudices, etc., so why look further, inconvenient truths that real science reveals?

Andy: “Your own claims about left-hand right-hand flows would believable if you had the slightest objective evidence to show that it works.”

We (healers) are well aware of the flow direction. It is not something a healer without scientific, experimental experience might think to point out to a non-understanding experimenter. That is why it helps to understand a subject in which you are carrying out experiments, trying to apply science.

I do not give a Foster’s (XXXX) whether you believe it or not.

There seems to be a quaint notion among some mainstreamers that something does not exist until it is proven to do so, like extraterrestrial radio waves being deemed not exist until there were instruments to detect them. Actually, there may well be something in that but it is at a far higher level than mainstreamers can comprehend, quantum physics and above. Even at the lowest level of quantum physics it has been noted that physical reality is only there when someone looks for it. At the higher level we are into co-creation, Real Reality, the actual non-existence of both physical reality and time, etc. a bit too complicated, I think, particularly going on the reactions and comments so far.

Andy: “Even the non-physicist can get an idea that the paper is rubbish by noting how each paragraph does not follow the previous. There is no development of ideas.”

You are, obviously, not up to reading technical papers. Given that you seemed to be confused about some Newtonian mechanics, ideas at the level of “The 3-fold Way and Consciousness Studies” are going well beyond that, so no great surprise.

The purpose of a paragraph is to go onto something else not directly connected. That is standard English language. A new paragraph signals a change of topic. That is the way it is used in “The 3-fold Way and Consciousness Studies”, with the overall content flowing perfectly intelligibly.

Since reading your comments, I have re-read the paper. Even on a quick re-reading it is coherent, flows and makes sense. If you are not up to it you should refrain from commenting, that is what real scientists usually do.

I do not take Korotkov’s and Levichev’s work as “the be all and end all”, simply the best fit I have come across for what I understand, experience to be “know to be” on a level beyond your comprehension, that I have, so far, come across; a “best approximation” which is all any science really is.

I was not impressed with the paper because of the academic qualifications of the authors, it was because it made sense, or at least potentially so, and fitted with a hypothesis of my own. As Levichev points out, though it is obvious and basic science anyway, in order to investigate something you need to postulate the nature of what you wish to investigate, come up with some sort of concept, model, then devise experiments and equipment to test it. That is precisely what Korotkov and Levichev have done. They acknowledge the limitations, though, along with many others working in the field, have come up with impressive results.

What they postulated was a model of the human aura that was partially in Minkowsky/Einstein space time, partly not; other dimensions being acceptable to modern science. From their own experimental results and those of others, there model seems to be of value in advancing understanding in that field. The model makes sense to me because it takes into account some of the things that I and other healers experience.

Andy: “Richard, I think it comes down to the observation that you are far too impressed with authority. You make several claims to your own authority (regarding qualifications and experience) and point to those Russian papers that use the solace of quantum theory to bamboozle.”

I am not impressed by authority, that is why I have little time for the mainstream characters who are poor on science, such as Richard Dawkins, Simon Singh, Edzard Ernst, et al. Much of what they write is illogical and poor science, very basic, very junior science. I am even less impressed when people like Dawkins come into my territory and make a hash of it, such as “looking at it from an engineers point of view”, then Dawkins looking at it precisely in a way that a scientist would and an engineer would not. For example, in the interview he did with Sheena McDonald the 1990s he went on about the television camera and an engineer taking it apart to see how it works. No, an engineer would not do that, certainly not in the first instance, though a mechanic, electrician, or scientist might. An engineer looks first at purpose, function, reason for being, overall application, because that tells more than the mechanics, or electrics, the latter fills in the details; more about the artefact, those using it, there thinking, culture, etc.; then an engineer would go to the next level down, the science, etc.

What I wrote above is coherent, along with some references. It is well beyond you and you are clutching at straws, including the usual litany of supposed fallacies, logical errors, etc., that self styled sceptics usually parrot, then go down the illogical routes they themselves have highlighted to “prove” their points.

There is no bamboozling in the Korotkov, Levichev papers, certainly not on the concepts, which I have little problem in following, though clearly, you rapidly choke on them.

I mention my own qualifications to justify my comments, no more than that; standard practice in the technical field. If you, or anyone else, chokes on that as well; too bad. They are clearly on my professional Web Site but many people have a quaint idea about engineering and engineers, especially in this country. Engineers are more than just scientists and, as a result, better able to comprehend what scientists find difficult.

On the other hand you appear far too impressed with the authority of science and, in terms of qualifications, experience, etc., appear to have nothing to offer.

Andy: “What is written in the first Koroktov paper is pure nonsense.”

Then prove that it is nonsense. No qualifications or scientific training versus an experienced biophysicist at PhD level and a mathematician at double PhD level who has taught in Russia and the united states as well as authoring numerous pares and books; you are in children’s’ science dreamland.

As you, apparently, struggle with Newtonian mechanics you are hardly in a position to judge.

Your approach is akin to someone like Emily Rosa saying that a book on engineering mathematics, electrical engineering, materials science, etc., is pure nonsense, just because it is well beyond her level; I suspect she was more able, even at age nine, than to find that sort of approach necessary.

How would you get on with the Euler Bernoulli Beam Equation (http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/beams/theory.cfm), or imaginary numbers, i.e. the square root of minus one, etc. the first is essential to mechanical engineering, the second equally essentially to electrical engineering, both come before the first half term of the first year of a diploma or degree in engineering.

What do your do for your next trick, quickly read and dismiss Roger Penrose’s “The Road to Reality” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0224044478), or Brian Greene’s “The Fabric of the Cosmos” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fabric-Cosmos-Texture-Reality-Penguin/dp/0141011114/ref=pd_sim_b_1/202-3631169-5990267). After all, accepting either would mean “that you are far too impressed with authority”; but, wait a minute, doesn’t that mean that accepting any book or paper by a qualified person is being “far too impressed with authority”. That rules out Richard Dawkins’ “The Blind Watch Maker”, etc., Simon Singh’s and Edzard Ernst’s “Trick or Treatment” as well as all their other books and papers, anything written by Victor Stenger, Michael Shermer, etc., etc., etc. although, maybe I missed something, I suspect it makes a huge difference in terms of subject matter, just who the “authority” is, which bias thy are paddling, supporting, etc.; unnatural selection?, what would Dawkins say? Oh, of course, it fits with the way he thinks, so that is okay then.

Andy: “It is a "Chewbacca defense" of quackery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defence#Chewbacca_defense”

Back to the juvenility and abuse, of course. The “Chewbacca defence” seems to come down to just claiming to be confused; sort of “Stop it, my head hurts”, “That’s not fair”. As a British Prime Minster once said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. You are, clearly, not up to it. No doubt you will label that “ad hominem”, I can almost see it coming. The self-styled sceptic bunch has a quotable supposed logical fallacy for every occasion; never applies tot hem, though, of course.

In the first place I am not defending anything, simply discussing, and trying to do so on an adult level despite the repeated juvenility of the use of words like “quackery”, etc. (I long ago noted that very many self styled sceptics seem to have entered a second childhood, with due apologies to the sensibilities of real children.)

You still do not seem to be able to manage without the juvenile abuse, though given the name of your Web Site that is never likely to happen.

Andy: “Brandon - my example is not logically flawed. It is making it obvious that correlation is not the same thing as causation.”

Tell that to the people who say that apparent correlation between placebo and homeopathy, etc., means that the cause is the same; even setting aside tat there is no known mechanism for placebo; not at the mechanistic science level but very obvious at our level.

Andy on Brandon: “Despite your protestations, you have not answered my question unless you answer is 'No. I cannot think of any evidence that would change my mind'. That is fair enough. You have a closed mind and think yourself infallible. OK by me.”

You are rather adept at turning people’s words to read as you want them to and accusing them of being something they are not.

That is rather like a self style Dr I ran into on the UK Skeptics forum, arguing, essentially, “You said “A” but what you mean is “B” and “B” is wrong so what you said is wrong. “Diabologic” seems contagious in the self styled sceptic, pseudo-sceptic community.

There must be a “pidgin Latin”, or “Star Wars” character allusion to that sort of weird “reasoning”, “logic”, somewhere in the pseudo-sceptic lexicon.

Andy: “ … as this contradicts well established facts about the nature of matter and energy.”

No it does not. There is no contradiction with the “established facts about the nature of matter and energy”. There are mechanisms beyond those so-called “established facts”, which may include an explanation for homeopathy. In no way does tat contradict, or limit what is known, so far, no more so, as I have already said, than quantum physics contradicts Newtonian mechanics; the later is valid up to a point, then the former takes over. Given your very level of science basic and, apparently, very shaky grasp of it, you are hardly in a position to tell others much about it.

I reached and passed the level of science you appear to be at half a century ago, including the nature of mater and energy, and have been using it ever since. There is no point at which there is any contradiction between the basic mechanistic science and what might be called “extended science”.

Andy: “Do you really advocate a person by person "see what works for you" approach.”

To some extent that is necessary as, though you may not have noticed, people are very different to one another. Not all medicines or treatments work for all people, obviously.

I am allergic to penicillin, for a start. Something over thirty years ago I developed an allergy to raw apples, similarly with peaches, though no idea why, especially as it does not apply to cooked versions, raw pears, etc.

I had a problem with petit mal, very mild epilepsy that developed in the 1960s. Mainstream science cannot properly explain it and is limited to what it can do about it. I found that when I “felt rough” the problem went away when I deliberately noted far more of what was around me, what was happening, etc. when I attended a presentation by Dr Christine Page, during the interval I looked up petit mal in her then current books, “From Healing to Wholeness” (http://www.amazon.com/Frontiers-Health-Wholeness-Christine-Page/dp/0852073402). Her explanation under “psycho-spiritual” as I believe she termed it (I have not got time to go all through my books to check) was at least ninety five percent what I experienced; it was a matter of not being fully connected with the physical, not wanting to be in the physical. By taking so much notice of what was around me, in the physical, via the physical senses, I was pulling myself into the physical. In healing terminology, as well as similar approaches, I was grounding myself. When I first became involved with healers it turned out that my energies were “top heavy”, tending to be concentrated from my waist up, rather than evenly distributed. My problem was solved by means other than mainstream medicine.

You do not need to put Chistine’s Dr in quotes, as you did with Dr Jeremy Sherr, she is a real doctor, of the medical variety (http://www.christinepage.com), English, decamped to the United States; though frankly, at your level you have a nerve questioning anybodies qualifications very much.

Of course, all of that is way beyond you, Andy, but I will be very surprised if Brandon does not comprehend with ease, as will very many other people.

Brandon is not the one with problems. We all have our limitations. I have mine and Brandon seems to be aware of his. If only that were true for all of those contributing to this discussion, not that I am sure it is much of one.

There is another matter you seem to overlook. Whatever you, mainstreams scientists, doctors, complementary and alternative therapists say, ultimately it is down to individual choice, of the recipient, of the patient.

Andy: “Believe me Brandon. I am thinking. And my thoughts are that much alternative medicine is a menace as it fails to be self critical and introspective enough to be considered mature enough to be let near ill people.”

Talk about pots and kettles. Your level of knwoeldge and science, quite apart from the self critical and introspective bit, is certainly not safe to be let near ill people.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:45:15 GMT

Richard,

Your post was very inspiring to me. I shall follow up the references you have given. Thanks for this.

Andy,

Homeopathy works great for me.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:50:08 GMT

Richard - I appear to have touched a raw nerve. Merely stating that my level of education and awareness is vastly lower than yours does not make it so. I do not disclose my degrees and certificates as they are irrelevant to most discussions. What if I told you I had a PhD in nuclear physics? Would that change your stance? Would you object so strongly that I could not dismiss the Korotkov and Levichev paper as pseudoscientific bullshit?

Let me call your bluff. Ff you claim to follow the paper perhaps you could answer a few simple 'class 101' question on quantum theory. I will make is simple so you should have no trouble. If you do well, then perhaps we can discuss Korotkov and Levichev in a bit more detail?

1) The writers that have most influenced my thinking on quantum theory are:

- Eisberg and Resnick

- Deepak Chopra

- Fritjof Capra

- John Gribbin

- Richard Feynman

- Bill Bryson

- J.K. Rowling

2) Position is to momentum as energy is to:

a - angular momentum

b - Ψ(x, t)

c - global warming

d - health

e - vibration

f - time

3) Why?

4) The film "What the #$*! Do We Know!?" was

a - the ramblings of lunatics

b - the most startling and insightful documentary in a generation

c - a recruitment advert for a strange cult

d - a showcase for forward thinking scientist researching things that the establishment does not want to know

e - a shameful inditement on the state of education in the western world.

5) The apparent role of consciousness in quantum theory is

a - that we can shape our universe and ourselves according to our thoughts.

b - that human brains have a special place in the universe

c - due to much philosophical diagreement over the interpretation of 'measurement'.

d - illusory

e - hampered by our lack of a full theory of consciousness

6) The most amazing piece of technology to come from quantum theory in the world today is :

a - the QLink pendant that uses "Sympathetic Resonance Technology or SRT™", a pioneering branch of quantum physics, to reduce stress on the body

b - homeopathic theory of non-local influences

c - this computer you are using to waste time on the web

d - the quantum computer

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:52:54 GMT

If you can answer Q3 (the follow on from Q2) in your own words I will understand you have a basic grasp of quantum theory.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:54:28 GMT

Brandon - feel free to chip in with your answers too. Although you make no claim to understand quantum theory so I will understand if you have absolutely no clue whatsoever.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:54:07 GMT

Andy,

Homeopathy works great for me.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:00:25 GMT

Andy,

You are making a fool of yourself. Are you suffering from "false authority syndrome" ?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:10:18 GMT

No. I am merely calling Richard's bluff. Invoking quantum mechanics in quackery usually relies on there being no one able to challenge what you say. Does Richard know what he is talking about as he claims? We shall see. If he does then we can deconsruct the K&L paper. If he does not, then there is no point. He will have been exposed. He has accused me of not knowing what I am talking about. Now it is his turn.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 21:38:23 GMT

Well, one day on and no response to some simple questions. I do find it remarkable, Brandon, that you accuse me of 'false authority syndrome' after Richard spent a thousand words chest beating and loudly pronouncing how he was far more educated than me and advanced in his thinking. I am not sure he wants to back this up. Maybe he is scouring away in wikipedia now trying to muster an answer. Who knows?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:08:11 GMT

Quantum physics says not to bang head against wall

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:16:22 GMT

Andy,

You are just trying again to twist and manipulate. For all those interested, here how Andy does it:

1. Somebody makes a statement A and logically demonstrates that B follows.

2. Then comes Andy who makes a new statement C manipulating people into thinking that C is equivalent to statement A.

3. Then Andy shows that B cannot follow from C and hence A must be wrong.

Now, Andy, let me give you the bigger picture here. You cannot manipulate those who already know what is right and what is wrong. These people will not subrogate their rights to choose natural remedies and hence will be healthy. Those who fall for the pharmaceutical approach will be sick and probably dead. Who ist left? All those with reason and understanding. This is then when big pharma goes belly up. Then you and your friends will be facing a well educated mass of people who will be laughing with one eye about you trying to still make them believe how beneficial allopathy is. With the other eye they will be crying over the millions and millions of people that big pharma has murdered over a period of more than 100 years. Long live "medical evidence".

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

harradine — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:26:24 GMT

Brandon what you are saying is wrong. You are attacking the process and even existence of objective evidence and arguing that your personal exoperiences matter at all.

They matter to you, so follow your instincts. But your experiences are irrelevant to anyone but yourself. By definition.

When one looks at how 20, 100, 10 000, 1 million people experience, then you find a pattern. You see how effective or ineffective a treatment is. You see if it has negative effects as well as positive one. You gain far more information.

What you are advocating is an sample of 1. Should we wish to know if a treatment is effective or safe, we give it to one person, see what happens, then apply that to everyone else. That is rediculous.

As I say, you may as well pick a smoker in their 70s and conclude that smoking is safe. Absurd.

When the larger scale comparisons have been done, using many people, homepathy doesn't do anything more than simply giving people water and telling them it has special powers. If that works for you then I say stick with it. But at least be honest and accept the facts surrounding the situation. It is dohonest to make up non-existence systems that borrow from the language of science, but do not use its methods in an attempt to skirt around the issue that you respond very well to placebo.

Richard, sorry, you've lost me when you started going on about having lucid conversation with people who don't have bodies. Seriously, have a word with yourself. You might say I am closed minded and you know all this magic hokum to be real. Good luck to you. But seriously, come on. Is life so bad that you have to make up things to make it more interesting. No one is fooled by that nonsense Richard, its called horse sh1t.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:48:34 GMT

Brandon we have already established that you are infallible and know what is 'right and wrong' in advanced and cannot be questioned about or consider the possibility that you may be mistaken about one or two things. We know this much for sure. It would now be nice to see if Richard King knows what he is talking about. It looks very much like he has run for cover. The quantum bluff has been called.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:55:55 GMT

Harradine,

There is no objective evidence unless everyone can verify AND understand what is presented as evidence. Beyond that, the evidence presented must be complete in order to be more than just a limited application reality. This is an impossibility. Science exists for the purpose of understanding what has been observed. Pumping the bodies of some trial subjects full with chemicals and then see what happens is not scientific. It is based on trial and error and then re-trial. Personal experience is much more valid for each individual than third party hear-say presented as "evidence". Nothing matters more than personally knowing what works and what does not.

You might have noticed that I never made the claim that just because homeopathy works for me and for millions of others that it works for everyone. The numbers speak a clear language but in fact, I do not know how others really experience homeopathy. I also do not know how others experience calpol or ibuprofen.

You said: "When the larger scale comparisons have been done, using many people, homepathy doesn't do anything more than simply giving people water and telling them it has special powers."

What sort of nonsense is this, Harradine? Not one Homeopath I know has told me such things. What do you personally know about homeopathy? You are talking about things you have not the slightest idea about. You are a pretender and misdirect others by outright lieing about what has been said.

You said: "But at least be honest and accept the facts surrounding the situation."

What facts are you referring to? Where have I been dishonest? Rad my previous posts and stop lieing.

You said: "It is dohonest to make up non-existence systems that borrow from the language of science, but do not use its methods in an attempt to skirt around the issue that you respond very well to placebo."

Who has made up non-existent systems that borrow from the language of science?

What scientific methods are you referring to?

Where is you first hand knowledge that I respond to placebo? Do you know me? Where is your first hand knowledge that homeopathy is based on placebo?

You see? You know nothing and yet you talk as if you did. You are a liar and deceiver.

You never introduce anything of value into a conversation. Instead, you manipulate people into thinking that science is the answer superior to people's experience. This is the vanity of evil and is the source of all suffering in this world.

I am personally happy that the pharma fraud is on its way out.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:04:24 GMT

Andy,

You said: "Brandon we have already established that you are infallible and know what is 'right and wrong' in advanced and cannot be questioned about or consider the possibility that you may be mistaken about one or two things. We know this much for sure."

You seem to know more about me than I do. Are you God?

You said: "It would now be nice to see if Richard King knows what he is talking about. It looks very much like he has run for cover. The quantum bluff has been called."

Really? What bluff? Have you not noticed Richard's posting patterns? There are usually quite a number of days between his posts.

Like Harradine, you do not add anything of value to this forum. Manipulation, misrepresentations and outright deception are your trademarks. You are here to discredit, disrupt and destroy decency and openess. Not one constructive sentence has come from you, not one.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

harradine — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 23:22:08 GMT

"There is no objective evidence unless everyone can verify AND understand what is presented as evidence."

Why? Why should that be so? What about all the things you don't understand? Are you saying that what you don't understand does not exist?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:18:45 GMT

Let's get back to Bryan Hubbards original post here. He claims that critics of homeopathy are forgetting that people should have the right to choose homeopathy on the NHS. Somehow we are denying choice. There are many reasons why this is wrong, but I think this thread and the contributions from Brandon and Richard highlight this quite well.

Choice is only meaningful if it is informed. No one wants to make a choice when they only have access to misleading and incorrect information. Richard's introduction of quantum mechanics is thoroughly misleading. It gives the impression that homeopathy and other alt meds are somehow underpinned by theoretical physics and therefore have the authority of science behind them. Critics are portrayed as stuck in some sort of old fasioned 'Newtonian paradigm'. This is not true. By calling Richard's bluff, I want to expose that. He claims to understand the above papers on quantum theory when in fact they are gobbledigook designed to impress the gullible. If Richard dares to come back we shall quite clearly demonstrate this - as long as he is prepared to be honest and answer some direct questions. After so much chest beating about his greater intelligence, I think it would be very rude of him not to. (My guess is that, if he does come back, he will bluster like crazy and not answer anything. Anybody want to cover my twenty quid on this?)

And you Brandon, the go down another tack - the route of solipsism and denial of external objective evidence. How could a patient make an informed choice about homeopathy when you deny the validity of objective evidence? It would be stunningly hypocritical of you to expect others to do what you would not. I expect you should say that people should try things for themselves, but that begs the question about on what grounds should people try alternatives?

Let's imagine the well argued young person off to Africa for a three month gap year adventure. Should they take conventional prophylactics or trust in homeopathy? On what grounds should they make that choice that alt meds so desperately want people to exercise? Brandon gives no mechanism for accepting any treatment - only personal experience counts in Brandon's worldview. But this cannot be good enough because if the student makes a wrong choice they could die. Richard would wish to bamboozle the student with quantum theories of the superiority of homeopathy. Is that an honest approach to giving this student choice? No - it is utterly dishonest.

And that is the problem with the proposal to allow 'choice' of alternative medicine on the NHS. With so much nonsense being spoken about the 'alternatives' it is difficult to see how someone could ever achieve the state of being fully informed that would be required to make a meaningful choice. if the patient is being lied to, deceived and manipulated then choice does not exist.

The only people who benefit from such false choices are the practitioners of alternative medicine, and that is the real agenda , isn't it? Tax money for quacks.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 13:14:22 GMT

Harradine,

Your last post:

-------------------------------------

"There is no objective evidence unless everyone can verify AND understand what is presented as evidence."

Why? Why should that be so? What about all the things you don't understand? Are you saying that what you don't understand does not exist?

-------------------------------------

This is exactly the question, I have for you: Are you saying that what you don't understand does not exist?

Read my previous posts and it will become hopefully clear to you that I precisely accept the existence of things although I do not understand them. Why? Because my personal experience has shown me that this or that exists or works.

I say that "objective evidence" does not exist because in order to be objective, it must be verifyable and understandable by everyone. It might exist for those who are able to understand and verify that what is presented as evidence is correct. But it is not objective evidence for all those who are unable to verify or understand. It cannot be. It can only be hearsay.

I give you an example: I do not understand the physics behind a bumerang. Somebody once showed me that when I through it in a particular way, it will come right back to me. So, I threw the bumernag and it came right back to me and to this day, I still do not understand how it does it. What fascinates me is that it does. Why would I now go and try to find scientific evidence explaining to me how it does it? I already know that it does. I already have evidence through personal experience.

The same applies to homeopathy as far as I am concerned. The only diference between the two examples is that the bumerang operates in our 5 sense realm and homeopathy operates outside that realm.

So, in other words, your question stipulates that you also believe that there are things which you do not understand which is what I have been saying all along.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:06:47 GMT

OK Brandon. Let's take you at your word and examine your beliefs while we wait for the more interesting Richard to resurface.

You say that you cannot believe in so called objective evidence because it "must be verifiable and understandable by everyone" other way such evidence is just "hearsay".

Do you believe in atoms as the building blocks of matter? Have you ever verified their existence personally? What about Higgs bosons? Would you want to build your own Large Hadron Collider before you accepted any experimental evidence from CERN?

Do you believe that there are two robotic wheeled vehicles on Mars right now doing geology experiments? Have you been there? Do you even believe that Mars exists as a planet? Have you tracked its orbit over various nights to convince yourself that it does orbit the Sun?

Do you believe there are wild gorillas in Africa? What about dinosaurs in the Congo? Why do you draw a different conclusion for each (if you do).

Do you believe Greece exists as a place? Maybe you have been there on holiday. Would you be confident to book a holiday there before personally taking the trouble to confirm its continued existence?

Personally, I think you have a caricature belief in science and knowledge. You ask for mathematic style 'proof' of science - and science has quite different ideas of proof. For example, it is logically possible that Greece does not exist. It is logically possible for a vast conspiracy to have duped us all into believing such a place exists. But it is not reasonable to believe so. The balance of probablities, given the nature of evidence available to us, albeit second hand and subjective, is overwhelmingly in favour of there being a real home of retsina and dolmades. It is perfectly rational to believe in Greece without any direct first hand experience of the place.

Science works in the same way. Scientific facts are those statements about the world where it is now absurd and unreasonable to doubt them. (Such as homeopathy is a placebo treatment.) And yes, science then turns out to be provisional and incomplete, but not irrational and useless, or inaccurate and wrong. It is much more subtle than your caricature supposes.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:39:20 GMT

Andy,

You said: "Do you believe in atoms as the building blocks of matter? Have you ever verified their existence personally?"

I neither believe in atoms nor do I not believe in them. At school, a teacher tried to teach me about various atomic models which each had its specific limits of application.

Each model works reasonably well if used within the confines of its limitations. It became very clear to me that an atomic model is not evidence, it is just an attempt to explain certain phenomena which would have continued to exist even without such attempts. Therefore, scientific models are inferior to the experience of phenomena. To be able to proof something scientifically certainly fulfils the scientist with great satisfaction, however, his proof is without meaning to all those who do not understand and cannot verify the experience. Unless you understand Chinese, would anything said in Chinese to you have any meaning? Would you leave your personal experiences behind and abandon them, just because somebody would be talking in Chinese to you? I would not.

You said: "What about Higgs bosons? Would you want to build your own Large Hadron Collider before you accepted any experimental evidence from CERN?"

I certainly would not simply because I know nothing about it. Therefore, I can also not accept if somebody claims that there is evidence for this or that when I do not understand that which is presented as "evidence". It might be interesting, but I would not base any decisions on third party hearsay which is what it is until such time I can understand and verify what has been claimed.

You said: "Do you believe that there are two robotic wheeled vehicles on Mars right now doing geology experiments? Have you been there? Do you even believe that Mars exists as a planet? Have you tracked its orbit over various nights to convince yourself that it does orbit the Sun?"

I neither believe nor do I not believe that there are two robotic wheeled vehicles on Mars right now. Is it possible? Yes, why not. On the other hand, I do not know whether there is a Planet called Mars. I know that when I take my telescope and point it to a place the coordinates of which are alleged to be those of Planet Mars that I will be able to see a reasonably sized structure of reddish colour. My conclusion of this is that there is something in that place but it could also just be a big light. I do not really know because it is beyond my capabilities of verification.

If I want to know whether there are wild gorillas in Africa, I go there myself or I ask one of my friends whom I trust and who has seen them in a place commonly known as Africa. However, if somebody would ask me to swear an oath that gorilla's exist in Africa, I would have to decline because I have never seen them there because I have never been there.

You said: "For example, it is logically possible that Greece does not exist. It is logically possible for a vast conspiracy to have duped us all into believing such a place exists. But it is not reasonable to believe so. The balance of probablities, given the nature of evidence available to us, albeit second hand and subjective, is overwhelmingly in favour of there being a real home of retsina and dolmades. It is perfectly rational to believe in Greece without any direct first hand experience of the place."

Now, we are getting somewhere. You are correct. "Greece" does not exist. However, a geographical area commonly known as Greece does exist. Many of my friends whom I trust have been to that area and told me many things about it. It is also easy to verify that such a geographical area exists. However, I have never been to "Greece" and therefore cannot swear that it exists unless I would go there beforehand. So, it has nothing to do with probabilities. It is verifyable and can be directly perceived but before I have been there myself, I have no evidence. You are of course free to accept as evidence whatever you like. If something is perfectly rational for you does not mean that it is for others.

You said: "Science works in the same way. Scientific facts are those statements about the world where it is now absurd and unreasonable to doubt them. (Such as homeopathy is a placebo treatment.) And yes, science then turns out to be provisional and incomplete, but not irrational and useless, or inaccurate and wrong. It is much more subtle than your caricature supposes."

I do not doubt anything unless I have direct knowledge giving rise to doubt. I also do not accept anything which I cannot verify and understand myself unless it is within the realm of my experience. Your problem is that you can only think in black and white. There is a whole range of other colours in between. If people were honest with themselves they would understand how little they really know by means of our 5 sense perceptions. Your statement that homeopathy is a placebo treatement is based on nothing because you do not know and cannot know. You operate in the 5 sense world and do not accept that there is anything beyond it. Hence, you speak out of a position of limitation. The first step to wisdom is the recognition that our knowledge in the 5 sense world is extremely limited due to the fact that we have not verified what we believe. The open and inquisitve mind holds that everything is possible. Certainty evolves out of personal experience but with still an open mind to the effect that what is concluded today might be met by contrary experience tomorrow.

Homeopathy has always worked for me ever since I have started on it. Will it work tomorrow? I do not know. Is it possible that it does not work for me tomorrow? Yes, why not. Is it possible that it does work for me tomorrow? Yes, why not.

This is the kind of openess, I personally require. The fact that I have been denied access to the raw data of various medical studies does not fill me with trust and confidence. It lacks openess and creates a cloud of secrecy no matter what kind of explanations are given. This was the moment when I started to realise that nothing matters more in my life than first hand knowledge. If somebody tries to prevent me from getting first hand knowledge, I simply turn my back on him and say: No thanks.

Andy, you have to understand that it is impossible to get passed people's personal experience and knowledge, no matter how hard you try. You have your opinions and I have mine. Your expression of your opinions are motivated by impulses I have no idea about. You have no idea what I am motivated by. Your reality is not my reality and vice versa. One thing I have learned in my life: Whenever there are people who claim that they have evidence for this or that, they back out the moment I ask them to sign a statement taking full personal liability for any damage done as a result of me following their "evidence". Unless somebody takes responsibility for his "evidence", the liability rests with me. I am perfectly within my right to refuse a liability which a non-liable third party is trying to impose upon me. In a world, where everyone including governments and corporations operate under limited liability, there is no safety and certainly no "evidence".

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:04:16 GMT

Brandon, you make claim that I have to understand that "it is impossible to get passed[sic] people's personal experience and knowledge". That is not true. And despite your denials, I do not believe that you work like this too. Your statements make you an extreme skeptic - doubting everything that you cannot personally verify and you present propositions as if they have equal weights of either being true or false. But you do not operate like that. You operate as if the Sun will rise tomorrow and as if there really is a place called Greece when you book holidays. You operate on a reasonable and operate inductive belief system despite your protestations you do not.

Your demand that people sign some sort of disclaimer on their liability is of course absurd. At one level, people do this sort of thing everyday. Your Greek tour holiday operator will enter a contract with you. If Greece did not really exist, you could claim against them. But in science and medicine what you are asking is somewhat unreasonable for many reasons.

Let's say you have to undergo an operation to save your life tomorrow. The surgeon discusses the operation with and presents you with evidence to say that it is 95% successful. What is the rational thing to do? Will you undergo the operation? What are you really asking the doctor to sign when when you make your bizarre demand? Are you asking her if there really is evidence that the operation is 95% successful and not 50%? If you subsequently found out that the success rate was indeed 50% undoubtedly she misinformed you and you would be in your rights to complain/sue. But are you asking that the doctor underwrite the success of your operation? How could they? 5% of the time, the operation will fail. That is the risk. You have to make up your mind whether you want to take that risk, not to ask the surgeon to agree to indemnify you. Do you take the 95% chance you will live or not?

I think this might go back to what I have said to you before that your real problem is with risk and uncertainty - not evidence. And you confuse their being risk with their being no evidence. For you evidence is about certainty. Welcome to the real world where evidence is just data that helps support the truth of propositions.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:17:00 GMT

Brandon - one other thing that is quite interesting is your elevation of the evidence of your five sense above all other evidence. Have you not heard of cognitive illusions?

One of my favourites is the "Same Colour Illusions". A checkerboard is presented with shading on it. One 'black' square is labeled A and a 'white' square is labeled B. Your brain interprets the squares as distinctly black or white. But there are several ways of deflating this illusion - as is given on this page. Your brain is fooled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_color_illusion

A more common version of this illusion happens when you see dark and black scenes in the cinema. The cinema screen is white, so how can the darkness appear so real?

Given that our brains are so remarkable subject to so many cognitive illusions, how do you protect yourself against them . The evidence suggests that homeopathy is nothing but a cognitive illusion. The illusion is deflated by randomised controlled trials - much as in the example above. How do you know you are not being fooled?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:43:14 GMT

Andy,

You said: "Brandon, you make claim that I have to understand that "it is impossible to get passed[sic] people's personal experience and knowledge". That is not true."

You have to understand that you cannot get passed people's personal experience before you can understand what I am talking about. Hope this clarifies my statement.

You said: "And despite your denials, I do not believe that you work like this too. Your statements make you an extreme skeptic - doubting everything that you cannot personally verify and you present propositions as if they have equal weights of either being true or false. But you do not operate like that. "

This is exactly how I operate, however, I am not a skeptic which should have been more than clear by now. I doubt nothing which I cannot verify but also do not accept it at face value. This is the only way to keep an open mind.

You said: "You operate as if the Sun will rise tomorrow and as if there really is a place called Greece when you book holidays. You operate on a reasonable and operate inductive belief system despite your protestations you do not."

You do not know me so making any claims about me is foolish. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because ever since I can remember, the sun has done so every day. It is part of my personal experience so far. Would I bet my life on it? No, I would not because I cannot know for sure. Nobody can. The fact that you have made the same personal experience adds nothing and takes nothing away from my personal experience.

As far as Greece is concerned, I would book a holiday to Greece under the assumption that a geographical area commonly known as "Greece" does exist. However, I very clearly distinguish between first hand known facts and assumption. I know that I am making an assumption. That is the way I operate.

As far as your example re surgery is concerned. The surgeon cannot present me with "evidence" that the operation is 95% successful. He might make such a claim which might be true or not. However, it is not evidence as far as I am concerned. I might take it as "evidence" in an act of dilusion in order to comfort myself but this is unlikely. The first thing I would do is try and find people I personally know who had the same operation and then make up my mind whether I can accept that risk or not. Again, it comes down to personal due diligence. One thing is for sure. I would never let a surgeon cut into me in case I had cancer.

In terms of liability: If a surgeon does not sign a sworn statement that the operation is 95% successful, he obviously does not believe it himself. I would not make him sign a sworn statement garanteeing that I will survive or be unharmed if he clearly states that the success rate is 95%. This would be unfair and absurd because I make the choice to go ahead with the operation and not him. However, if he does not sign a sworn statement that the operation is 95% successful, I know that he himself does not believe that this is the case. You have to learn to distinguish the fine nuances, Andy. The crucial conclusions lie in these fine nuances.

I have many friends and familiy members who had their appendix removed. They all had their operations without complications and are still alive and well. If a doctor told me that the chances of surviving and appendix operation was only 20%, I would still go ahead with it (although a different doctor) because his figures do not match those of the experiences of my friends and family members simply because I trust them. They have nothing to gain by giving me false information.

You said: "I think this might go back to what I have said to you before that your real problem is with risk and uncertainty - not evidence. And you confuse their being risk with their being no evidence. For you evidence is about certainty. Welcome to the real world where evidence is just data that helps support the truth of propositions."

Unlike you, Andy, I distinguish to a very high degree various levels of logic, perception and concepts and I am evermore concerned with refining my thinking. Certainty and risk is hardly a concern of mine because life is neither certain nor risk free nor should it be. What concerns me is the fact that there are criminal, greedy and ruthless pharma companies out there who claim that there are certain risks when there are none and then offer products they claim to be safe to combat a risk which did not exist in the first place. In order to get away with such logical fallacy, a concept of "evidence" is abused and people are indoctrinated with it from cradle to grave. The result is that hearsay is accepted as proof and the result is a much sicker mankind. When I was a teenager, it was rare to hear of people with cancer. Today, it is not unusual anymore. When I was a teenager, my ordinary doctor would prescribe herb teas and all sorts of other natural remedies. When I was mid twenty, I developped migraines. By then, dcotors no longer prescribed natural remedies. They prescribed pharmaceuticals which did not help me. Homeopathy has helped me get rid of my migraines and has done so ever since.

You said: "Brandon - one other thing that is quite interesting is your elevation of the evidence of your five sense above all other evidence. Have you not heard of cognitive illusions?"

Andy, really, where did I say such a thing? Can you not read or understand what has been said? My examples in the 5 sense world were given to create a limited space in which certain experiences become veryfiable using tools also operating in the 5 sense world. There are many realms beyond the 5 sense world and homeopathy is one of them. However, I am not wasting my breath here to explain it to you because you have to open your mind first.

Sure, there are many dilusions and illusions. I cannot remember having made any statements to the contrary. Sure, the mind can be tricked. The best example is that people are pronouncing and accepting hearsay as "evidence". A gigantic trick.

How do I combat such dilusions and illusions? Observation and logic. In order to not fall into a trap of illusion, I do not make any claims unless I can verify and understand.

You said: "The evidence suggests that homeopathy is nothing but a cognitive illusion. The illusion is deflated by randomised controlled trials - much as in the example above. How do you know you are not being fooled?"

There is no such evidence. There are, however, claims to that effect. It is hearsay and should be ignored unless every aspect of such so called "evidence" can be commonly verified and understood. Do you seriously think that I will stop taking homeopathic remedies? The moment I do that, I know that I have been fooled.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:40:50 GMT

Thank you for your explanation. You have put your case and I shall let others judge about the wisdom of accepting the word of one or two people who have had similar operations over the collated data of thousands of cases. I wish you good luck in developing and refining your thinking.

The only thing left really is to see if Richard pops up again.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Sam — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:57:34 GMT

Andy Lewis runs the quackometer web site

He along with others 'believe' they are right and there's no point arguing with them.

Read these articles is you want to see the corporate backed web of pro industry groups putting out their spin and propaganda.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/12/09/invasion-of-the-entryists/

http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=78

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sense_About_Science

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:26:40 GMT

Well, I think you can be pretty sure to have won the argument when your opponent ceases to argue the points and instead resorts to smears.

And Sam, your is a pretty stupid attempt at a smear. I hope you feel ashamed.

First of all, I do believe I am right - just like everyone else in this discussion. A belief in being right does not preclude anyone from taking part. What we have established here is that I am at least bold enough to evidence my beliefs and describe in detail what sort of evidence would change my mind. Brandon tries to pretend that evidence cannot exist and stretched the meaning of 'hearsay' to breaking point in order to hind behind his barrier to thought. Richard merely quantum babbles and cannot defend what he says after beating his chest so strongly.

And then Sam, you try to kink me to various demonised organisations. For the record, I have never been funded by these organisations, nor provided funds for them. I am not backed buy an corporate concern and I am not here on some commercial mission. Pure fantasy on your behalf.

And what if I had? Would that make homeopathy true? Of course not. The emptiness of the pro-alt med arguments laid bare here for all to see.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:30:36 GMT

Andy,

Still the old child, eh? Trapped in a materialistic mind prison. Is there anything that you have first hand knowledge of except talking about things you do not understand?

You said: "And what if I had? Would that make homeopathy true? Of course not."

You are right. This would not make homeopathy true. Only homeopathy makes homeopathy true. What you think, say or misrepresent has no bearing on homeopathy. It is completely irrelevant.

Homeopathy just works great for me and I am happy that I can share this information with others who are looking for inspiration.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:53:28 GMT

Sam,

Interesting information. I had a look at quackometer. The site is irrelevant and should not be taken seriously for one reason. The chap who runs it claims to use the process of thinking to show that "alternative" medicine is nonsense. When one then reads the posts and articles, it turns out to be all hearsay. No thinking going on on that website.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:00:57 GMT

Brandon - hearsay appears to be your favourite word. Do you have any inkling what it means? Do have any appreciation of why the scientific method is the exact opposite of hearsay? Would you like to defend your position as to why science is mere hearsay? Some very great minds appear to be very wrong if you are right. Are you just blindly arrogant or are you onto something? Interested as to what you might have to say.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:59:00 GMT

Andy,

I am glad that you ask what hearsay is. Let me first clear up a misunderstanding: I have never said that science IS hearsay and therefore there is no position to defend. I said that what I cannot verify AND understand is hearsay as far as I am concerned. Most people can neither verify nor understand what is being said and that is not only restricted to science. People usually accept in good faith what is being presented to them. Therefore, even if truth is expressed it remains hearsay to all those who cannot verify and understand what has been presented for as long as it is not part of their own personal experience which of course overrides hearsay. This is the reason why hearsay is not accepted as evidence in a court of law, at least, it was not until recently which now puts as back into the middle ages when an allegation was enough to get somebody convicted. In a court of law, a fact is established by one party making a sworn statements (orally or in writing) under the full penalty of perjury. Therefore, a party making such statement accepts full liability. That is the deal. Once done, the statement stands as fact (not truth nessecarily) in those proceedings unless rebutted by the other party in form of a sworn statement under penalty of perjury. Therefore, liability plays a big part. In the absence of liability there is neither fact nor truth which means that there is no evidence. In the UK and the US, pharmaceutical companies are excempt from all liability by statutory law. The governments accept a limited liability only, if at all. This means that the government is shielding big pharma from the consequences of its products at the expense of the statutory tax payer and this means that the government is not there to protect the rights of living men and women. This is something to think about. As a result, there is no longer any need for pharma companies to research anything beyond the most basic requirements which leaves the doors wide open to corruption and fraud because there is no liability.

So, what is the solutions for big pharma to this problem? It is simple.

Either they establish their research results as fact by accepting full and unlimited liability or they advise people openly and honestly by stating that a product might help but that there are known and possibly unknown side effects which might only come to light in the long term. They then publish all their raw data for third party evaluation. Now, the liability lies with the human being using that treatement because they have been properly and openly advised. Either of the above two ways ensures that the pharma industry stays in honour. If neither of the above two ways are established, hearsay is the result because good faith has turned into blind faith. This is then when I logically and reasonably rely on my own personal experience because no third party can force me to accept a risk which it has forced into my life without accepting liability.

Honour is the acceptance of liability to indemnify third parties against any damage one might cause. An example of this is car insurance (although it is only a limited liability instrument) or a bond.

Why did I refer to the law? I did so because the law must be the fundament upon which we all base our actions so that victims of our actions have recourse and remedy. If the principles of law collapse by absolving certain parties from liability, such third parties become the unelected rulers and ultimately the tyrants. Therefore, the information published by such third parties is highly unreliable and unless verifyable and understandable can only constitute evidence to those who have been involved in the research process or those who believe in it. Those who believe in it as evidence are running a great risk but it is up to them really.

In the interest of this discussion, I would appreciate if you could reply point for point by quoting what I said so that a clear line of reference can be established.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:27:43 GMT

Why do you privilege the law so much? It is nonsense to say that the law " law must be the fundament upon which we all base our actions so that victims of our actions have recourse and remedy". This is very odd way to live your life. Is not a personal morality and sense of integrity more important? The law only covers a small part of our lives. It is still possible to do many bad and nasty things that are perfectly legal. We can cheat on our partners, lie to our friends, be vindictive in our affairs and operate sharp but legal business practices. I hope you do not avoid doing bad things only because they might be illegal. That is no morality, as far as I am concerned. That is mere avoidance of punishment.

Your insistence that others cover out risks also smacks as a weird morality. Can we not take responsibility for our own actions and take on our own risks, even when we might not have a full knowledge of those risks? Of course we can. A patient undergoing a risky operation does so that it could cure them, but with a risk that it may go wrong. There is a world of difference between being negligent and taking a risk. I think you may be conflating the two.

And so on to your ideas of 'hearsay'. It would appear that you believe that science can become hearsay merely on the basis of your ability to understand the science. Scientific facts do not change according to your ignorance of them. All that alters is your ability to comment sensibly on them. Maxwell's equations still describe the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields whether or not you can understand and verify them. Homeopathy is still a placebo treatment if you fail to comprehend the science behind that statement. That you privilege your own personal experience over science merely means that you will be wrong more often than right.

I think you are advancing a form of the logical fallacy - argument from personal incredulity. This fallacy "refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead".

What you have done with your fetishisation of hearsay is completely invert the way you should be thinking. In a court of law, hearsay evidence is seen as untrustworthy precisely because it cannot be directly cross-examined and tested. Scientific fact is the complete opposite of this. In order for results to become established science, they must be exposed to the full and harsh criticism of the scientific community. The results must pass through peer-review, be torn apart, independently replicated and reinforced from other results. Then we can have confidence that results mean anything. You reject this process and instead resort to your own private hearsay. Your personal anecdotes and experience that can undergo no process of scrutiny, test and evaluation. You subject your yourself to be fooled by your own hearsay.

And as for your assertion that "pharmaceutical companies are excempt from all liability by statutory law". This is of course utter hogwash. Care to point to the law that states this?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:39:14 GMT

Andy,

Your way of twisting my words almost borders on the insane. You are either so brain washed that you cannot distinguish white from black or you are one of the most evil people I have come across.

The further reply here is not for you. It is for all the other readers who need to be made aware of the brainwash they are subjected to by irresponsible people like you.

Andy said: "It is nonsense to say that the law " law must be the fundament upon which we all base our actions so that victims of our actions have recourse and remedy". This is very odd way to live your life. Is not a personal morality and sense of integrity more important?"

The only moral thing to do when we interact with other people in the public is to ensure that we DO NO HARM. This is the most basic principle in law and should be guiding our conduct. If we do cause harm, we must ensure that we owe up to it and make amends as far as possible. If our personal morality is congruent with this law then we have reached the point where wo do not need law anymore. We are most certainly not just there yet.

Andy said: "It is still possible to do many bad and nasty things that are perfectly legal. We can cheat on our partners, lie to our friends, be vindictive in our affairs and operate sharp but legal business practices. I hope you do not avoid doing bad things only because they might be illegal. That is no morality, as far as I am concerned. That is mere avoidance of punishment."

You are talking about the private life of people here and not the public one of which I am talking about. If somebody in his private life engages in dishonourable conduct like cheating and so forth, he most certainly lacks integrity also in his public endeavors. You do not even know the difference between illegal and unlawful. I refrain from doing bad things because they might cause harm to others. Should I cause harm to others, I will stand up and say that I did so and bear the consequences. Your stipulations are therefore outright malicious and testify to your dishonourable intentions and conduct.

Andy said: "Your insistence that others cover out risks also smacks as a weird morality. Can we not take responsibility for our own actions and take on our own risks, even when we might not have a full knowledge of those risks? Of course we can."

You are engaging again in twisting words and outright dishonesty. I said no such thing. I said that everyone must be responsible for the things he brings to others whilst insisting that they are safe, good or of any value at all. Pharma companies are not just offering products. They are coercing governments, falsify "evidence" and then walk off without liability. If they just offer a product and we are free to choose and walk away from it, then of course it is our risk. But people like you do not want people to turn their back on big pharma. You are engaging in the manipulation of people's thinking and perceptions and do so without any liability. You are creating a risk for others and then hide your recklessness behind such pharses as people taking on responsibility. And then, as soon as they do, you blame them for not believing third party hearsay disguised as medical "evidence".

Andy said: "A patient undergoing a risky operation does so that it could cure them, but with a risk that it may go wrong. There is a world of difference between being negligent and taking a risk. I think you may be conflating the two."

Yes, as long as the risk has been explained and is an honest reflection of the real risk and the patient has done his homework and is satisfied, the patient carries the risk and should carry it. In the end, it is up to everyone individually. This is my message. If, however, the risks were not explained properly, based on fabricated statistics like it is common in big pharma and the patient does not want to take the risk then this is also his choice.

I am not talking about negligence versus risk. I am talking about risks artificially created through fabricated "evidence" without liability. Read my post again.

Andy said: "And so on to your ideas of 'hearsay'. It would appear that you believe that science can become hearsay merely on the basis of your ability to understand the science."

No, it would not appear that way. Read my posts again and again and again until you get it into your brainwashed head: Nothing can become anything at all. Everything is what it is completely independent from our perception of it. A lie is a lie and truth is the truth whether we recognise it or not. I am also not talking about science. I am talking about the abuse of science through the fabrication of "evidence" as it is standard practice in allopathic medicine. If a third party says something or makes a claim then it is hearsay as far as it concerns me. Something cannot be considered evidence by me if I cannot understand how this evidence was brought about. It is impossible. This does not make science hearsay, it just measn that it is hearsay in my personal perception. Unlike you, I am not hooked into a pharma hive mind depriving the hooked of the capability to think and asses individually and personally.

Andy said: "Scientific facts do not change according to your ignorance of them."

Nothing changes according to my ignorance or acceptance of it. All that changes is whether I recognise it for what it is or not. Exactly my point. It is a personal realm of each individual. I do not need to accept anything at all as fact unless I can verify and understand it or experience it. If all three criteria are missing, I personally do not consider it to be fact. In all my posts, I am talking about my PERSONAL experience. Just get used to the fact that even you are not able to deny people their own personal experiences and ways of conducting their lives.

Andy said: "All that alters is your ability to comment sensibly on them."

Nobody can comment on anything he or she does not understand. All one can comment on is what is within the realm of personal experience or first hand knowledge. You do not understand any of the so called "medical evidence" because you do not have all the facts. You are a blind man with blind faith trying to explain to somebody who can see that he is also blind. Preposterous.

Andy said: "Maxwell's equations still describe the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields whether or not you can understand and verify them."

What do you know about Maxwell? If Josaih Gibbs from Yale University and Oliver Heaviside had not done away in the course of "modern science" with Maxwell's quaternion notation which would have ultimately resulted in a unified field theory we would not have this conversation. We would be living in a world of abundance and health. I have studied Maxwell quite a bit and it is my believe that his theories are applicable in practice and therefore can be experienced. Your statement might therefore be correct as it matches part of my studies and experiences. It might be of no relevance to somebody who does not understand.

Andy said: "Homeopathy is still a placebo treatment if you fail to comprehend the science behind that statement."

What science? Would you care to at least once try and proof that homeopathy is placebo? You always make such a claim and never provide any proof. And you cannot. It works great for me, has always done ever since I have started taking it. Therefore, there is no science to comprehend behind your statement. It is meaningless, short sighted, false and lacks any knwoeldge on your part. What else can you expect from a blind man?

Andy said: "That you privilege your own personal experience over science merely means that you will be wrong more often than right."

I privilege my own experience over hearsay, not science. Read my posts again. Science is a tool, nothing more. It is not a religion and not a doctrine. It is not what you want it to be: Objective and infallible. It is in its infancy and will only start carrying true weight once the corruption is gone and once people see it for what it is: a tool. Nothing more. It can never prove absolut facts because it can never take everything into consideration. Therefore, experiments and result are always limited and must operate within defined parameters. This automatically excludes parameters which exist outside the limits. If the experiment is limited, so is the result. Plain and simple.

I am neither right nor wrong about anything unless I have first hand knowledge or personal experience. The fact is that I have restored my health after having left the greedy and corrupt clutches of big pharma toxicity. Homeopathy has turned my health around.

Andy said: "I think you are advancing a form of the logical fallacy - argument from personal incredulity. This fallacy "refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead"."

This is you personal assumption and demonstrates your lack of logical thinking. Read my posts again. It seems that you are struggling with your own limits here. You have run out of arguments and have to resort to assumptions, stipulations and outright misrepresentations as usual. You have lost this battle a long time ago.

Andy said: "Scientific fact is the complete opposite of this. In order for results to become established science, they must be exposed to the full and harsh criticism of the scientific community. The results must pass through peer-review, be torn apart, independently replicated and reinforced from other results. Then we can have confidence that results mean anything."

That would be desirable. What makes you think that something has more credibility just because there are 100 instead of 1 making the same claim? What makes you think that I would consider that as "evidence". The process is corrupt. End of story.

Get me the raw data of a medical study and I can prove it.

Andy said: "You reject this process and instead resort to your own private hearsay. Your personal anecdotes and experience that can undergo no process of scrutiny, test and evaluation. You subject your yourself to be fooled by your own hearsay."

Yes, I always reject corrupt processes. The rest of your sentence above does not make sense as it does not relate to me. I do not practice private hearsay. I stick to what I have first hand knowledge of and what I can experience. This automatically precludes hearsay. Private experience is private. You have no right to scrutinise it just as well as I have no right to scrutinise somebody else's experiences and ridicule them or pretend to know anything about the other one. You are the fool, Andy, because you talk about so many things you have not got the slightest idea about. But I can understand it: You clutch your fists to the last straw that there is: The blind believe. Are you not trusting your own experiences? Poor you.

Andy said: "And as for your assertion that "pharmaceutical companies are excempt from all liability by statutory law". This is of course utter hogwash. Care to point to the law that states this?"

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about and yet immediately utter a judgment. God help us and protect us from people like you also in the future. Go and look for yourself. Do one constructive thing yourself in this whole discussion. It took me a great deal of effort and a lot of phone calls to verify this information. It is out there and can be found. Make an effort and stop parasiting on the efforts of others.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

harradine — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:45:13 GMT

The hunger to misunderstand is palpable on this website.

Brandon. Homeopathic remedies are normal water and indistinguishable from absolutely normal water. Indistinguishable as in no one has ever been able to distinguish them so far and either refuses to try or fails to.

But passing you a glass of water is not the same as homeopathy. So obviously homeopathy is about something other than what is in the water.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:46:39 GMT

Homeopathy works great for me.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:47:12 GMT

"Get me the raw data of a medical study and I can prove it."

Are you serious!? I would love to!! What's your email address?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:50:29 GMT

Brandon,

What are your thoughts on the Flat Earth Society? (Those who believe the earth to be flat). Would you say they are more likely to be right or wrong?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Hrradine — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:01:30 GMT

Lets look at the logic:

There are two theories. A and B.

Theory A has plentiful evidence.

Theory B has none

"I cannot understand how theory A explains X"

"Therefore theory B must be right"

Ignoring the fact that theory B has no evidence and that it cannot explain X.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 05:14:52 GMT

Wow Brandon - such chest beating?

I will respond to a couple of things:

Firstly, how do I know homoeopathy is a placebo? Because the pills (beyond 12C) are indistinguishable from placebo pills. They are identical in all respects. No one can tell them apart, physcially, chemically or in their biological action. If you retute this, then show me the evidence. Do not provide your personal hearsay as it will be insufficient. Your experiences are mere tricks of the mind. We know people are easily fooled by quackery. You are just one member of the club.

I would like to take you up on one final point though. I asked for the law that lets pharma companies be "excempt from all liability by statutory law".

What law is this?

You have made a ridiculous claims and you need to justify it. It is not up to me to chase after your absurdities. If you have any credibility left, you will substantiate this. Or will you do a Richard and just bluster more or disapear in a puff of smoke?

What law is this? Are you man enough to answer?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 05:18:15 GMT

Haraldibe - you are spot on with the analysis of logic displayed here.

It is the same corrupted logic creationists make:

"My mind cannot comprehend how evolution works, despite all the evidence that it is true"

"Therefore creationism is true, depsite there being not a jot of evidence for it"

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:31:29 GMT

Harradine and Andy,

I can only advise you to read my posts again and again. Your task is to put people into a corner and viciously, dishonestly and dishonourably attack anybody who does not accept sick and inhuman thinking patterns. Grow up first.

Post the link to the raw data and I will take a look at them. I am not giving out my email address here.

As far as the law is concerned, make an effort for yourself. If you really want to know then you make that effort. If you don't, be my guest and remain in illusion.

You are parasiting on other people's posts here without making any constructive contributions whatsoever. I am not going to feed this parasitic behaviour any longer.

HOMEOPATHY WORKS GREAT FOR ME. End of story.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:45:19 GMT

Brandon - let me repeat. I think I am being reasonable. You have made an absurd claim - that pharma companies are exempt from liability law. It is not up to me to substantaite that claim for you.

You said you are not going to post anymore. Is that, like Richard, you cannot substantiate your assertions? Are you talking out of your elbow?

Can you substantate your claims? If you can, do it and you will show you have substance. I doubt you can.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:27:20 GMT

And while we awit for your substantiation of your wild claims, there is one more thing I would like to point out.

You continuously accuse me of "twisting words and outright dishonesty" and you have said I am one of the most evil people you have come across. Again, without substantiation.

I think you are believing your own rhetoric. For example: when I said

"It is still possible to do many bad and nasty things that are perfectly legal. We can cheat on our partners, lie to our friends, be vindictive in our affairs and operate sharp but legal business practices.",

you responded,

"You are talking about the private life of people here and not the public one of which I am talking about."

This is clearly not the case. I explicitly mentioned peoples business affairs. There are two possibilities: 1) you do not read what is written 2) you do not care what is written and resort to ""twisting words and outright dishonesty". Which is it?

There are many other examples.

And as for your Gibbs and Heaviside assertions. Ha Ha Ha. You have not fallen into the pseudophysics of 'Dr' Bearden's scalar field nonsense? You have fallen for exactly the same trick that Richard fell for. You have flattered yourself that you understand the 'maverick' science. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Brandon. My guess is your study of electrodynamics is purely amateur and you have got yourself into a whole heap of gibberish. Marvelous. Do you want to start chest beating about that too? I am happy to take you on in the same way that I challenged Richard. Ready for it?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:20:19 GMT

Andy,

The ones who started failing to proof any claims you made are you and Harradine. Not one piece of proof. Is it that you have no first hand knowledge?

People will decide for themselves. Do some research for a change if you want to know. I am no longer providing you with the fruits of my labour because you are not worth it.

Everyone can find out the information for themselevs. No more spoon feeding.

By the way, I studied Maths and Physics at university. Hence, no further comments on what you have to say about Maxwell.

You do not challenge, you destroy, insult, inflame, lie and deceive. These are your traits. You have no idea what you are talking about and yet pretend to do. You are repeating what your brains have been washed with without any first hand knowledge.

HOMEOPATHY WORKS GREAT FOR ME.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:32:11 GMT

I am happy to debate your Maxwell theories even if you have studied Maths and Physics. I have a PhD in physics. My dad is bigger than your dad. Want to play?

And can you subtsantiate your absurd claim that pharma companies are exempt from liability law. I can find plenty of counter exampes.

My guess is you cannot.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:17:44 GMT

Homeopathy works great for me.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:33:38 GMT

Dear People,

As you might have noticed on this thread, there are two individuals who do no take part in honest discussions but rather engage in ridiculing, attacking and deceiving others. They pretend to have knowledge, elevating "scientific evidence" to be the new God.

My personal experience is: Trust your instincts and do not allow yourself to be deceived by arguments. Unless we have first hand knowledge or personal experience of something, we really know nothing about it. Anybody could claim anything, including myself. What I say, is hearsay to you because you do not know me, nor my intentions, nor my experience. Even if everything I say was true to the best of my knowledge, it does not make it true for you. Equally, I can also not proof to you anything simply because you have to find out for yourself or TRUST YOUR INSTINCTS.

Sickness is the business of big pharma. A health center is a sickness center, pharma pills are toxins, health care has turned into assault. A healthy patient is a patient lost and as harsh as this might sound, go and do you own research and do not be distracted by people like Andy and Harradine.

TRUST YOUR INSTINCTS. The rewards will follow.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:38:16 GMT

Well that's great then. I sincerely hope you never get really ill.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:25:07 GMT

Again Brandon you keep mixing up one argument for another. I would say the exact same thing to anyone involved in pharmaceutical science (and in fact do all the time, its called peer review)- where is your evidence? Don';t make a claim unless you have evidence for it. When it comes to pharma claims the law is there to enforce this.

It is such a rediculous position to be in that if anyone confronts your opinions you decend into some paranoid rant about big pharma and those who try to distory that you are saying. You have only made on point-that homepathy has worked for you. So what? Use it then. As I have said many time before, use whatever works for you. That's obvious. But don't advise others what to use unless you have some reason, other than your own experiences, to do so. Because your experiences might not apply to anyone else and they might not respond. When it comes to homepathy, your example, this is exactly what we see.

I always hear this nonsense aboyut science being the new God. Its just wrong. Science is the opposite of religion. One takes statments made by authoirty wthout critcism. Science is based on an inherent system of perpetual criticism of evidence and reappriasal of ideas. The fact that you are scientifically illiterate doesn't make science any less valid. It just means you are ignorant of it. Can't really blame science for that Brandon.

Use what works for you as long as it keeps working. Especially if your illness is not particularly serious. But if something nasty comes along, look for the treatment that works best for most people. This doesn't mean do a google search and end up on websites like this one, who would have you dangle a medallion over the affected organ and pray to energy systems or just say quantum, over and over. Keeok for evidence. Science is not a dirty word, it is not an establishment, a profession or a company. It is a method just as logic and reason are methods. Choose to abandon logic and reason, then good luck to you but don't expect adults to take you seriously (althiough granted you will always find some like minded people who have done so, hence WDDTY..).

Really, really, really wanting to beleive that something is true doesn't make it true. Loving the idea of it working doesn't make it work. Identifying with people who beleive something works doesn't nmake it work.

that's what objective evidence means= cut through the BS and find out what works

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:12:12 GMT

Harradine said: "that's what objective evidence means= cut through the BS and find out what works"

Exactly my point.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:33:34 GMT

Brandon, but that's not what you have been saying. You have denied the very existence of objective evidence, so exactly the opposite of my point.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:06:42 GMT

Harradine - I think you are making the mistake of expecting Brandon's arguments to be coherent.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:40:40 GMT

Dear People,

The only objective evidence is your own experience. If something works for you repeatedly and reliably over and over again then you have first hand experience which you might want to trust. If some third party claims anything to the contrary and you can neither understand nor verify its claims no matter how "scientific" they appear to be, abandonning your own experience would mean that you trust others more than yourself and your own experience. This could be called blind faith. I personally do not believe blind faith to be an acceptable life philosophy and hope that you carefully read the posts in this forum.

The bottom line is that your should not believe anybody you do not personally know and trust and that includes myself. I am not here to give you advice. I just wish to share my own valuable and life changing personal experiences I have made with homeopathy and some other forms of "alternative" treatments. Everything is your own personal and individual choice. Trust your instincts.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:18:32 GMT

Brandon - perhaps you could let people know about your integrity and reliability by answering this question which you appear to want to dodge.

Can you subtsantiate your absurd claim that pharma companies are exempt from liability law?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:07:34 GMT

Andy,

Read my previous posts. All the answers are there.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:57:16 GMT

Brandon,

Back to square one again. What about smoking? If someone has been smoking heavily for 30 years and is still alive does this mean than smoking heavily for 30 years is safe for others?

No. Objectively study (i.e. lots and lots of people, thousands. Hundreds of thousands) show us that smoking is one of the biggest killers around, the single greatest cause of cancer, the single greatest lifestyle related cause of mortality.

You don't find anything out with an N of 1 that is in any way useful or that cannot be accounted for by a myriad of alternative explanations, which you don't see.

This is such basic stuff Brandon. I don't beleive for a second you have 'studied Maxwell' or any other branch of science in any depth if you don't even grasp O level probability!

If there was one area of study that I think our education should focus on addressing so that the next generation get it right up to adulthood is probability. Every crank, every poor sod who falls hook line and sinker for wooh and cold reading, and horoscopes, and homepathy and just about every branch of irrational thinking there is, falls down on basic probability. And when they do- what do they do? Beleive that rather than being ignorant of something that maybe they should learn, they fall for the whole conspiracy trap. And as soon as any evidence comes along against there being a comspiracy? They conclude that this is part of the conspiracy. i.e., anyone who disagrees with them. Its perfect non-thinking. Ok up to about age 12, maybe 13. Unforgiveable after that.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:20:29 GMT

Brandon

Can you subtsantiate your absurd claim that pharma companies are exempt from liability law?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

harradine — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:46:23 GMT

Pharma companies are exempt from product liability law..? Brandon, did you really say that?

So, what about Epilim? ( you do know about Epilim?). Paroxetine (you do know about paroxetine?) Celebrex (you do know about Celerex?)

I guess these multi part litigations somehow slipped you 'research'?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:01:35 GMT

Brandon knows he has been caught out making wild assertions. I would have more respect if he simply said that he could not substantiate it and might have made a mistake. But that would require some insight and honesty.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:26:39 GMT

Andy, Harradine,

I give you a little hint: A class action happens in civil court, not criminal court. It is usually settled privately between the claimant and the respondent. A class action only becomes viable if many people get together because of laywer's costs and pharma companies have many expensive lawyers. A class action is settled upon agreement between the parties and swiftly moves out of court. The clauses in such settlements expressly state in ALL cases that the pharma conpany does NOT ACCEPT ANY LIABILITIES. So, guys, before you start taling about something, know the facts.

Pharma companies are protected by statutory law from criminal and financial liability. This does not mean that they cannot be sued privately but it this only viable if many many people get together. Do some research into legislations passed by congress in 2006 for example. This just as a little hint. Do you own research and stop parasiting. It really shows your true colours.

And Harradine, your proposal to to educate people so as to make life changing decisions on the basis of probabilities is really one of the most stupid things I have heard in my life. It is based on assumption after assumption and not on fact. The first assumption is that the data set and the methods used to calculate a probability are done correctly. Since nobody except those calculating the probability have any first hand knowledge about the data and methods, the whole thing again is outside of people's experience, knowledge and verification.

EVERYTHING THAT CANNOT BE VERIFIED AND UNDERSTOOD FULLY AND COMPLETELY BY EVERYONE AFFECTED BY IT CANNOT BE SEEN TO BE OBJECTIVE. If it is, it is blind faith and people must know that they are operating in blind faith when trusting something they cannot verify. However, IT IS EVERYBODY'S CHOICE TO FOLLOW WHATEVER THEY WANT for so long as they do not do any harm to others.

Probabilities are not objective whatsoever. As I said before, you are now descending into the realm of triviality and stupidity.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:33:19 GMT

Brandon. It would appear your graps of law is a strong as your grasp of science. The fact that some pharma companies have settled out of court without admitting liability does not mean that they cannot be held liable for their actions. That is why they settle.

You have failed to make your case. You have just blustered rather pathetically. You could make a strong case by naming the law and (preferably) giving a URL to the relevent statute. You make us look like fools in an instant. But you choose not to. We all know why, don't we?

And, typing strong assertions in capitals does not make thing any more true. Your argument is daft. Can you name any aspect of life that is fully and completely understood by everyone affected? No? Would that suggest that there is therefore no objective knowledge achievable no matter how incomplete and provisional? Does that look odd to you? Are you not really a charlatan hiding in simplistic philosophical solipsism? It if it, perhaps you would appear more honest if you said so. It would deny your ability to argue about any truth statements, but you appear to want is all ways, don't you?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:44:39 GMT

Brandon - another point. I thought you said you studied physics and mathematics, and yet you make an absurd statement like "Probabilities are not objective whatsoever." How could a physicist and a mathematician make such a statement.

Example 1: Technetium-99m is a radioactive metastable nuclear isomer. It has a half life of about six hours. We can calculate the probability that a particular atom will decay in any given second. That is objective knowledge. Any undergraduate physicist can confirm this with their own experiments using techniques called 'counting'. In what sense is this calculated probability not objective? Does Tc-99m have a half life of, say, 7 hours in a more enligtened China? Or only 2 hours in rush rush New York?

Example 2: The probability of me winning the lottery tonight after buying a single ticket are about 14 million:1. That is a question of simple maths. In what sense is that probability not objective? Do you think the odds are better for you? If so, would you mind buying a ticket for me?

I am really looking forward to seeing how you wriggle around that one.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:37:42 GMT

Brandon.

You use homeopathy and feel better for it. So use it. What's wrong with that? Does it have effects beyond placebo? If so, no has has ever been able to show that. Does your experience demonstrate effects beyond placebo? It can't. You might be enjoying the benefit of a placebo response. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with admitting that? Personally I wouldn't care in the slightest if I responded to placebo alone. In fact I would be pleased about it. But I wouldn't deny that it might be a possibility. Your denial that placebo responses are at work is where the wheels come off. No one has been able to discriminate homeopathy from placebo. They are the same. So what? Keep on using it if it works for you.

Pharma companies are held laoable for injury the are shown to cause. And yes, they do have very expensive laywers who help them wriggle out of trouble. And they fork out when the courts rule against them. Booh big pharma. But this doesn't make homeopathy any different from placebo.

If you or anyone said, "you know what, I don't care if homeopathy is placebo, it works for me". Then I take my hat off to them. If they deny this and launch an attack on big pharma (which where justified I am happy to join in), I think what has one got to do with the other?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

harradine — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:48:53 GMT

Brandon,

I know that the epilim litigation is being pleaded under the civil liabilities act in the High Court. You might understand that cases pleaded under civil liability have a much lower burden of evidence, using the 'But for' rule, (i.e., 'but for exposure to this drug, my injuries would not have occured'), rather than the 'on balance of probailities' situation in criminal cases.

None of this demonstrates effects of homeopathy beyond placebo however.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:10:34 GMT

Andy, Harradine,

You are masterful con-artists trying to involve people in pointless arguments, side-tracking and so forth.

My own statistics professor at university told us: "Do not believe any statistics you have not forged yourself". We routinely learned techniques to make statistics look one way or the other by simply altering the qualification of the input data.

Whose brains are you trying to wash? It is fine with me if you think that homeopathy is placebo. Everybody can think what they want. Do you have first hand knowledge of homeopathy? No. You know nothing about homeopathy.

As fars as probability is concerned: Being able to calculate a probability does not influence whether a probability occurs or not. Therefore, probability is not objective. Somebody who wins the lottery does not care about probability nor do the ones who do not win. It has no bearing on the outcome.

Guys, for you to understand the fundaments of law, you need to do a lot more research before you can say anything about this. If you are so interested, why don't you try to find out for yourself? Am I your research donkey? What constructive contributions have you made on this forum?

You are engaging in the acts of destruction, without compassion, vain and heartless. That is your business. Well, it is not mine.

Everything I cannot not verify and understand or experience, I consider to be hearsay because I do not believe in blind faith and blind obedience. Homeopathy works great for me and continues to do so.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:31:54 GMT

Brandon, I always say use whatever works for you. I guess that's obvious.

We obviously approach this topic differently, but that's not important. What I am interested in whether you consider that perhaps homeopathy might wrok well as a great example of placebo effects.

I am not saying that it does (although that is what the evidence suggests and so where I would lean). I am wondering if you think that might be a possibility?

Even it is is 100% placebo, the question is still so what? But what do you think? Might it be placebo, given that no one can tell the difference? Even though the full weight of scientific method has tried and tried and found no difference?

Placebo effects are real, but almost nothing is known about how they work. My suggestion is that it is better to try to understand that, rather than ignore it and give it another name. What do you think?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:46:38 GMT

Brandon. There is no sidetracking. You make ridiculous assertions and I want to see you defend them. You have failed to defebd the ridiculous statement that pharmacos are exempt from liability. Now, you claim probability measures cannot be objective. You fail to offer any good reasons for this daftness.

Brandon said:

"As fars as probability is concerned: Being able to calculate a probability does not influence whether a probability occurs or not. Therefore, probability is not objective. Somebody who wins the lottery does not care about probability nor do the ones who do not win. It has no bearing on the outcome. "

So, probability has no bearing on outcome? How do you define objectivity to fit wit hyour warped view of the world? Are you confusing the specifics of outcomes with the descriptions of probability of outcomes?

You fail to answer any questions I ask you. Let me repeat:

a) is the half life (a probabilistic measure) of Tc - 99m, the same for everyone?

b) is the probability of winning the lottery the same for everyone?

A yes or no will do. If yes, in what sense is probability not objective? If no, why not?

Keep trying. Its fun watching you squirm.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Harradine — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:18:15 GMT

Bradnon, but what do YOU think? Might homeopathy be placebo?

Even maybe? Might possibly be? I know what I think. What do you think?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:59:57 GMT

Harradine,

If you want to think that homeopathy is based on placebo then you are welcome to think so. I do not. I have seen it work on small children and babies as well as on animals reliably every time. The drops were mixed in their absence into their water so that they could not possibly see it. This got me off the idea that homeopathy works on a placebo base. Now, some people argue that the baby or animal got better anyway and that it was not due to homeopathy. This argument is also valid about allopathic medications. The fact that there are some who claim that there is "scientific evidence" behind allopathy can easily be countered with the argument that the earth was round also in times when people believed that it was flat. Therefore, to claim that homeopathy does not work is like claiming the earth is flat 1000 years ago. Absence of "scientific evidence" does not mean that something does not work. If you discount the millions who use homeopathy and are getting relief of their ailments then I suggest that you speak to some personally and listen to what they have to say. You will find that many people have turned to homeopathy because their chronic illnesses could not be successfully treated with allopathic chemicals. Once they have been with a good and experienced homeopath, they all of a sudden get better. If homeopathy was based on placebo, why did the placebo effect not kick in earlier with the taking of allopathic chemcials?

Harradine, you are not here to discuss homeopathy. You are here to dissuade people from turning their backs to allopathic (pharma) products.

Therefore people, try what you feel comfortable with and listen to your own instincts. I personally do not put my life and my health into the hands of people whose only interest is profit and hence a sick population.

As an example, many years back, I was on a conference in Austria. I met an engineer there who worked for a car manufacturer. His job was to design certain parts in such a way that they would not survive for longer than 8 to 10 years. He also said that most car manufacturer do the same. I will not name the car manufacturer. Suffice to say that it concerned cars which most people will never be able to afford. Why do you think that they would enploy such engineers?

My opinion:

There is trust and their is blind faith. Trust must be earned. Blind faith is nothing else than passing on one's own responsibility to somebody else.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:16:13 GMT

Andy,

I do not need to defend anything. I know what I know and I know where I lack knowledge contrary to you. If you are interested, ring up a few senators of the US congress like I did. They will tell you quite some stories about the law and pharma companies and their dirty tricks. I will not spoon feed you because I believe that contrary to your style of arguing and lack of logic, you are not a child anymore.

I do not care what you claim. I am here to expose people like you who are in the deception business.

As far as probability is concerned, one more word. If something has a certain outcome which is repeatable, what kind of relevance does a calculation of probability have? The certain outcome is objective to all those who can observe the outcome. The probability calculation is not. It simply accidentally matches. If something is certain, the probability is 100%. Now, is the thing certain because the probability is 100% or is it certain because that is just the way it is?

You find all other answers in my previous posts. You just have to learn to connect the dots and step out of the box of your limited thinking. The fact that you do not like my answers cannot be helped. That's your problem.

Learn to think rather than regurgitate poorly digested snippets of information you picked up somewhere.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:30:40 GMT

Brandon - you know that if there was the slightest chance that you coulc humiliate me by proving your assertions about pharma companies by pointing to some evidence you would. The fact that you do not is strong evidence thatyou are just a bullshitter. And you have been found out.

And you fail to answer my direct and simple questions about probaility and instead change the subject and bluster. Do you feel any shame?

One more chance...

a) is the half life (a probabilistic measure) of Tc - 99m, the same for everyone?

b) is the probability of winning the lottery the same for everyone?

A yes or no will do. If yes, in what sense is probability not objective? If not, why not?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:56:30 GMT

Andy,

I have answered your questions. It is not my intention to humiliate you. As a matter of fact, I would feel ashamed of myself if I would attack anybody from a superior position. I try to engage people on the level they can understand. A little bit of good will is however required from the other party which you lack.

Your questions re probability are irrelevant as I have already shown above. They neither add nor take anything away from what I said. They are a diversion.

My position is: I consider any third party claim which I can neither understand and verify nor experience myself to be hearsay. Personal experience is above hearsay so people should trust their experiences and their instincts.

Homeopathy works great for me.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:31:41 GMT

Brandon - you are so full of it.

My questions are relevent because you make bold assertions that you cannot and will not substantiate. By refusing to back up your wild claims, you show yourself to be shallow and, in the end, untrustworthy. Why should anyone trust you when you cannot answer direct and simple questions that would demonstrate you are not bullshitting? By failing answer, you demonstrate your true character. And there is not much of it.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:00:55 GMT

Andy,

I believe that this thread here provides enough thought for people to make up their own minds. You can claim what you want about me. The secret to self-government lies in the growing up from being a child who needs parents to tell them what is right or wrong into becoming an adult who makes his own decisions and takes responsibility without relying on unknown third parties.

Study the laws that Congress introduced in 2005 and 2006 and you will ultimately come across the law I am talking about. This as a gesture of kindness. To find the relevant UK laws shall be at your own discretion.

People who are interested will become active themselves. They will not accept what you or I say at face value and they should not. They will feel a need to research and find out for themselves. They will become knowledgable and fulfilled in their striving for truth, peace and freedom of the mind.

The shackles of fabricated evidence and lack shall disappear and disappear they will! It matters not where you, Andy, stand in this process. It will happen anyway.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Hudith — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:50:38 GMT

It amazes me that the same people who promote the rule of the free market, democracry and consumer choice then go after institutions of learning and practitioners of healing modalitites in a way which reduces the choices of the consumer. Do we as consumers not have the right to waste our money if we so choose? Do we need "Big Daddy" telling us what is good for us?

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Andy — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:41:08 GMT

Hudith

I am not convinced that homoeopaths lying about the power of their magic pills increases ' the choices of the consumer'. Indeed, the exact opposite is true. It is disempowering and misleading and reduced effective choices for people.

re: Your right - even when you're wrong

Brandon — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:42:22 GMT

Hi Hudith,

Just ignore Andy. He does not have a clue. He lives in such low vibrations that he is incapable of seeing beyond the fringe of his own plate. Just trust your own intuition and do not be troubled by what the media say. It's all hearsay and most of us have very limited means of verifying the stories.