Minutus

Hi Shannon,
The "goog" results have been "anecdotal" and the kinds of
journals that count - even those
that are somewhat impartial - and many people of the same mind set
will not accept purely anecdotal evidence.

As it says in the "Synopsis" the Project v. Boenninghausen is an
attempt to remedy the lack of non-anecdotal evidence.

Pointing to the possibility of getting an expert opinion on the
statistical evicence is another attempt.
Most certainly. But, when all is said and done, we need not care what
the "allopaths" nor the pharma companies think - or profess to think -
of us. Important is what we can do to make the authorities think and
the potential patients.

As you said in another post and have been saying, same as I have been
saying numerous times over the years - infighting between the people
who employ different ways of using and prescribing "highly diluted and
potentized remedies", as is happening worldwide, is very
contra-productive to this aim, which should be primary concern.

Regards

Luise

The ol' "spin factor", I guess!

--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Hi Luise,
Oops, read my context!!!!! You had made reference to "good results" of
the studies; "good results" as determined by (more nearly impartial)
statistical analysis of the results of the studies. *That* is what I
meant--and that's not anecdotal, simply a matter of interpreting the
results more accurately, with less bias.
Agreed, but at this point the two are, sadly, quite closely linked.
*That* is why it matters what the "official" and published
interpretations of the studies are.
Yep, I certainly agree!!!!
On the one hand I think there are a lot of specific issues that *need*
discussion among all of the "factions" of homeopathy (how to define it?
How to interact with various circumstances? and lots more "etc."),
but I do wish it were being done in "professional" forums,
and--ESPECIALLY!!!!--in "professional" ways (e.g.: "The gentleman in
the black frock has the floor. He will speak in support of including
combination remedies under the term 'homeopathy'." Like that...
)

Okay, back under my rock!

Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Shannon,
I am a bit confused.

I meant that those journals *might* publish findings of an
impartial statistics expert, showing in a statistically unimpeachable
way the results of a meta analysis of all the known clinical trials,
which IMO would be a "good result" - i.e. it would IMO show that the
trials had shown very significantly the effectiveness of homeopathy
over placebo.

The people who have so far done the meta analyses - again IMO - did
not really understand statistics very well. MDs and most other
scientists/scholars are a lot less than experts on statistics. Stat.
is a part of the "mathematical" curriculum - students in the other
faculties usually take only one or two courses "light", and most of
them just manage to scrape by in that course:-) (This was the reason
that this MD professor I mentioned was taking this course).

For this reason the "goodness" of the results did not show up in the
meta analyses. (You may recall that e.g. the meta analysis of Linde et
al. were indeed published, in the Lancet at that afair).

The anecdotal evidence that I was talking about referred to the good
ness of results in our literature, which *is* anecdotal.
Certainly - but does not mean the allopaths and pharma. While I agree
that the AMA (and respective organisations in other countries) and big
pharma are powerful, they are not all-powerful. There is independence
around.

While I fully I agree I would settle for his being allowed to take the
floor at all and give his opinion without catcalls at best and being
chased off by trained bulls at worst;-)

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Well, tell that to the "alternative" docs who have been hounded out of
practice, basically for the "crime" of being alternative; to the
parents whose kids were taken away because they declined mainstream
treatment for the child's cancer; to the docs who have moved their
clinics out of the US because they were "too successful" to be
tolerated here...
But yes, we need to keep presenting our case as clearly and completely
as we can, because there are still good and helpful people listening.
Cheers,
Shannon

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]