More riches!
HELP, studies!!!
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: HELP, studies!!!
You will not find any real good studies written the way he asks for because it would be like trying to check his temperature with a ruler.....
Imagine claiming that stars do not exist because you cannot observe them with a microscope.......
Wrong instrument, wrong methodology, and refusal to acknowledge that.
I could suggest a place to insert the ruler and succuss it violently, then check the change in core temperature, though.......
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
Imagine claiming that stars do not exist because you cannot observe them with a microscope.......
Wrong instrument, wrong methodology, and refusal to acknowledge that.
I could suggest a place to insert the ruler and succuss it violently, then check the change in core temperature, though.......
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: HELP, studies!!!
I know... But so long as I'm getting a sense of communication (that he's listening, or trying to), I'm willing to play.Actually, a mini-success, the one study that I've sent so far he likes, is impressed by it. So heck, who knows, maybe he'll come away learning something after all. (If not, that's okay too.)
Shannon
You will not find any real good studies written the way he asks for because it would be like trying to check his temperature with a ruler.....
Imagine claiming that stars do not exist because you cannot observe them with a microscope.......
Wrong instrument, wrong methodology, and refusal to acknowledge that.
I could suggest a place to insert the ruler and succuss it violently, then check the change in core temperature, though.......
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: HELP, studies!!!
Wow John, THANK YOU!
(Hm, sorry if this is a re-send. My computer is not happy today!)
I'm only beginning on the first one, but this looks like an absolute goldmine. if he can't find something addressing his questions here, then I will be able to give up with an absolutely clear conscience. Zowie, now how to find some reading time...
)
Shannon
(Hm, sorry if this is a re-send. My computer is not happy today!)
I'm only beginning on the first one, but this looks like an absolute goldmine. if he can't find something addressing his questions here, then I will be able to give up with an absolutely clear conscience. Zowie, now how to find some reading time...
)Shannon
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: HELP, studies!!!
You're very welcome!
Lynn's list is much tidier than mine and reminds me of several sites I'd overlooked; I'm looking forward too to exploring those research collections on her list that I haven't encountered before. Thank you, Lynn!
I notice a message here too from Dana on the topic of studies; he tends to find some that are very well done, and with luck you'll find some links there.
But I think that Dr Roz's message is an important rider to all this. There's a genuine basis for homoeopathic researchers' claims that RCTs are a tool not particularly appropriate for measuring homoeopathic outcome, especially in comparison with their appropriateness for measuring allopathic resul:. That reason is as follows.
The aim of the allopathic prescription is to force an event to occur. As we know, medicines have that power in their primary action. The aftermath of that event -- the secondary action -- is of almost no significance to the developer of the drug; in fact, if it includes immediate return of the symptoms, then the drug has far greater commercial potential than if its effect is long-standing. The RCT's single measure, then, is the drug's power to overcome the organism's resistance and thereby force upon it the single change that the study has to show to be likely to occur.
By contrast, the aim of the homoeopathic prescription is, using as little medicinal force as possible, to take advantage of the individual organism's very particular susceptibility to that substance; implant a medicinal effect that is as gentle and brief as possible; and allow the organism to overcome it as promptly and permanently as possible. The RCT's unsuitability to take account of gentleness and permanence means that it overlooks two of homoeopathy's major strengths.
Moreover, the particular symptom upon which the RCT focuses is just one of many for which the homoeopathic medicine has been chosen as suitable in that patient -- and that, in a successful prescription, will all be overcome, gently and permanently, by the organism's own mechanisms, in the order in which the organism can organise it. The RCT is incapable of taking into account the holistic nature of the changes, their overall significance to the patient's health, and the significance -- or even the fact -- of the regression of an entire pattern of illness. This stands in contrast to the tool's great suitability to measure the eradication (however long-lasting or impermanent) of a single symptom without regard to the sequelae of that eradication.
It's for that reason that outcome studies, which can take account of the overall pattern of changes in the patient's health, are a far more suitable tool for assessing whether homoeopathic prescriptions are capable of meeting their aims, which are not, ever, to force a result such as disappearance of warts or suppression of pain but the suitable stimulation of the healing process that we know results in gentle, permanent, radical healing of the entire state that has resulted in the symptoms of particular interest -- with consequences for long-term health (and robustness to inimical influences) that are well beyond the capacity of RCTs to take account of.
Cheers --
John
Lynn's list is much tidier than mine and reminds me of several sites I'd overlooked; I'm looking forward too to exploring those research collections on her list that I haven't encountered before. Thank you, Lynn!
I notice a message here too from Dana on the topic of studies; he tends to find some that are very well done, and with luck you'll find some links there.
But I think that Dr Roz's message is an important rider to all this. There's a genuine basis for homoeopathic researchers' claims that RCTs are a tool not particularly appropriate for measuring homoeopathic outcome, especially in comparison with their appropriateness for measuring allopathic resul:. That reason is as follows.
The aim of the allopathic prescription is to force an event to occur. As we know, medicines have that power in their primary action. The aftermath of that event -- the secondary action -- is of almost no significance to the developer of the drug; in fact, if it includes immediate return of the symptoms, then the drug has far greater commercial potential than if its effect is long-standing. The RCT's single measure, then, is the drug's power to overcome the organism's resistance and thereby force upon it the single change that the study has to show to be likely to occur.
By contrast, the aim of the homoeopathic prescription is, using as little medicinal force as possible, to take advantage of the individual organism's very particular susceptibility to that substance; implant a medicinal effect that is as gentle and brief as possible; and allow the organism to overcome it as promptly and permanently as possible. The RCT's unsuitability to take account of gentleness and permanence means that it overlooks two of homoeopathy's major strengths.
Moreover, the particular symptom upon which the RCT focuses is just one of many for which the homoeopathic medicine has been chosen as suitable in that patient -- and that, in a successful prescription, will all be overcome, gently and permanently, by the organism's own mechanisms, in the order in which the organism can organise it. The RCT is incapable of taking into account the holistic nature of the changes, their overall significance to the patient's health, and the significance -- or even the fact -- of the regression of an entire pattern of illness. This stands in contrast to the tool's great suitability to measure the eradication (however long-lasting or impermanent) of a single symptom without regard to the sequelae of that eradication.
It's for that reason that outcome studies, which can take account of the overall pattern of changes in the patient's health, are a far more suitable tool for assessing whether homoeopathic prescriptions are capable of meeting their aims, which are not, ever, to force a result such as disappearance of warts or suppression of pain but the suitable stimulation of the healing process that we know results in gentle, permanent, radical healing of the entire state that has resulted in the symptoms of particular interest -- with consequences for long-term health (and robustness to inimical influences) that are well beyond the capacity of RCTs to take account of.
Cheers --
John