Minutus

BUT I think Irene's point, and wonderful illustration, are very good
too--
in some cases the study itself is fine, it's the *interpretation*
that's bogus. And sometimes the disconnect between what the study says
and what the interpretation says, is just that clear--but only if one
reads the study itself, and understand what is written there.

Sometimes you just need to read what's there;
Other times you need to know enough about the subject to understand
where the problems are, e.g. knowing that not all protein is created
equal, and cats are not made to eat soy! E.g. knowing whether the
product used in the study was an appropriate one (powdered eggs versus
fresh; or "proving" that a nutrient is non-therapeutic by simply doing
the study with a far-less-than-therapeutic dose size (e.g. a vitamin E
study I noticed); or "proving" that a nutrient is ineffective by using
it in a study on something for which *no one* ever considered it
effective (e.g.some arnica study--anyone remember? Proving that it
didn't help nerve pain or something?).

Studies can go astray at various points, *and* some no doubt are just
fine. I think her point is very well taken, that if the results of the
study actually *matter* to us, it pays to read the study itself. Just
think how much more efficient it is to *correctly interpret* a study
that was already done!
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tanya Marquette wrote: do you not know

NO, because those are not places to read *original* study reports.
I don't read those either:-)

We can all get bent out of shape about inequities in the world if we
want to spend our valuable energy on that - but what I am advocating is
looking for good research facts and using them to benefit our clients.
No more no less.

Looking for good science among the FDA or drug companies or grain
conglomerates was never advocated by me
Namaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

so irene,

what is your issue. i have never said that research itself is bad.
nor have i said that all scientists are bad. what i am saying
is that there is much bad research and science. but more
importantly is that science does not work in a vacuum and
is subject to the same politico-economic pressures as is
everything else in a culture. your vehement defense of
science portrays your position as very extreme to me and
seems to negate the complicity of people who make their
living off working for corporate america. there is not
simply 1 or 2 bad apples in the bushel. the problem is
systemic and is institutionalized--to the extent that people
work for institutions without thinking about the effect of
their work. i see the same problem in education, for
example, where the institutional systems absolutely preclude
really good teaching in so many of our schools. i do a lot
of work in the local school districts and see this all the time.
teachers who have a strong philosophical base in child
centered education usually have difficulty working for the
public schools. i wont even begin to get into the issue
of institutionalized racism and classism in education and
the almost hysterical resistence to even look at the systemic
problem. the system forces people who chose to work in it
to become complicity. whistleblowing or quiting become the
only options. and as in science, a teacher who choses to go
to the press or take legal action becomes blacklisted in the
entire region and possibly further away as well.

you obviously are a strong fighter for your ideas and i can
respect much of what you say, but i find your faith in
science as it exists to be too extreme for my experience.
the realities just dont warrant that faith for me.

tanya
and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations
regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any
document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this
website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out
of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site
or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a
single daily digest.

On Jan 30, 2007, at 7:25 AM, Tanya Marquette wrote:
It was kind of coming across that way...
Irene's main point has simply been, to *read* the reports themselves,
not the summary or interpretation. Good advice, no?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 09:03 AM 1/30/2007 -0600, you wrote:

The reports in many cases are flawed and if flawed info goes into the
report, how can you know the truth.
See the links I have sent.
Results not wanted to be included are discarded from the research.

There is no way to know by reading the reports if the information is
accurate or reliable, even if you are knowledgable at reading the reports.
Sheri

, >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes - next ones January 2007
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes - next ones January 2007
ONLINE Intro to Diseases - Risk, Reality & Alternative Treatment next ones
January 2007
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

yes, from irene's response i gathered that she was not reading
me correctly

and i do agree with you about the flaws in reports. it seems
to me that the point of knowing and trusting your source is
even more important than the results. i think that is how we
tend to make decisions a lot and i think this process has
value.

tanya
ones
and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations
regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any
document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this
website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out
of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site
or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a
single daily digest.

Tanya Marquette wrote:

It's that I fell homeopaths need to be able to read science and know
when it is good and when it is bogus, and to use the good stuff:-)
I defend only good science - big difference from the "blind" implication
in your wording:-)
I also promote the necessity of knowing the difference:-)
The reason is simple - it is in the best interests of my clients.

But yes - I DO believe in using the good science in case you are against
that. It is one of the reasons - a critical one - I get so much success
in my FIP cases for example. Nobody else has reported any, homeopath or
allopath to my knowledge:-)
It needs homeopathy (which is a good science) AND good research science
- to make decisions in the best interests of clients.
It does not matter to me how many are bad apples - so long as I know how
to tell the difference and use the good ones to make apple pie for m,y
clients.
It appears to me you might be so hung up on bad apples you pretend there
are no good ones - and in my view THAT is not in client interests.
)
Okay with me as I prefer to look in the direction of things I can use.
I could spend all day looking at the inequities in the world and
complaining about them - instead I choose a different way to spend my
time, a positive one.
Sorry - not my chosen life goal:-))
I don't watch ball games or news shows either - and I know those exist too.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Sheri Nakken wrote:
Lots of ways.
Maybe you just need more practice:-)))

NAmaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

At 08:20 PM 1/30/2007 -0800, you wrote:

I guess you didn't read what I said.
If the cases are flawed and the report is flawed as i said about, it hardly
is a problem that I need more practice
Sheri
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes - next ones January 2007
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes - next ones January 2007
ONLINE Intro to Diseases - Risk, Reality & Alternative Treatment next ones
January 2007
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

Hi Irene,
For those among us who *do* take your point do you have
specific suggestions as to how to weed out the good from the bad? In
some cases, of course, the issue will be obvious--e.g. report says "x
number of subjects became ill and were removed from the study", while
conclusion notes only that "those who completed the study [had some
good or harmless effect]"; or a study done with inappropriate or
meaningless dosage or whatever.

But in other cases, I find I just don't know enough about statistics
(gak) to tell what the study results seem to show. (And usually the
study itself is not quoted, would be hard to get hold of.) Do you have
remarks about that, or other specific suggestions?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]