Minutus

Both my husband and I were trained as scientists, so I have a bias towards "real" science, instead of junk science. When I say "scientific evidence," I mean evidence that supports an assumption of causation (X causes Y).
"Scientific evidence" means experimental evidence. You take two or more groups of homogenous mice, randomly assign them to the experimental and control groups, and measure how they react to one specific variable X. If X leads to Y in one group, but not in the control group, then one can tentatively assume that it is possible X causes Y.
Or you can experiment with people, but that is hard to come by because of ethical constraints. That is why most of what we know about human health is correlational and anecdotal.
Correlational evidence is when you study the population at large and notice that correlations between X and Y. This type of evidence does not support any conclusion of causation, because it is possible that a third variable, Z, actually causes both X and Y.
Anecdotal evidence is when you hear about X causing Y in one person, or 200 persons, or 5000 persons. It is not scientific because there was no randomization and no control comparisons. We don't know if X "caused" Y in these people because of some common factor Z that they all share, and that it is really Z causing both X and Y.
Most of the evidence supporting homeopathy would be considered anecdotal by the scientific community. However, just because something is anecdotal doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means, without experimental data, that there isn't yet any scientific proof that it is true.
I hope that clarifies what I mean when I use these terms.
Best,
Helen

Dear Helen
I too am from a scientific background.
May I refer you to a BBC2 programme called QED from c. 1991-2 on homoeopathy.
Here a herd of cows was divided in two.
Each had its own trough of water.
Each trough was 'medicated' with a small vial of liquid marked A & B respectively. The trough was also accordingly marked.
(The envelope showing what was A or B had been was sealed and was given to someone for safe keeping)
After some weeks the herds were compared for incidences of mastitis.
One sub herd had some 19 cases, the other only one.
When it was decodes, it was found that the one with 1 case of mastitis had been dosed with a homoeopathic remedy.
QED quod erat demonstrandum
As a result of that programme, I am now a homoeopath!
If more tests are needed, then I think a committee made up of Homoeopaths and others who dispute Homoeopathy should get together a design an experiment which would satisfy the requirements of both sides and then run it fairly.
[Unlike the Horizon prog which proved that only half of the samples showed the expected result - but strangely succussed pure water had an effect in the other half the cases. This immediately lead me to feel that a huge error (accidental or deliberate) had occurred in labelling.]

Regards

Soroush

Finrod wrote:

Me too.
And I do not find homeopathy unscientific at all!
In fact the use of cowpox to cure smallpox - and of other examples found
in nature, of the principle of homeopathy in action showing "similia
similibus curentur" since the time of Hippocrates - is perfectly scientific.

So is all the work on provings of remedies.
To suggest this is less than scientific makes no sense at all:-))

Hahnemann's work was exceptionally scientific and meticulously so.
Just because we can not explain at the atomic level *how* homeopathy
works does not make it any less scientific than anything the allopathic
community uses without knowing how that works!
Aspirin for example - was used for decades with no clue as to how it
works.

Where's the difference. Nobody calls aspirin unscientific.

Only fear calls homeopathy so:-)

Where there are differences - there should be!
Homeopathy uses energy - and allopathy uses chemistry. The yardsticks
for each are different - and each should not be measured by the
yardstick of the other system.

After all, we do not insist that water is measured with a ruler or that
microwaves are measured by weight or that drugs are measured by
resistance to disease.

Homeopathic treatment however can be measured by resistance to disease,
and that's a scientific thing. Allopathic treatment can not be measured
this way as it does not even attempt to give disease resistance. One
might measure survival time after a drug.

So the science has to fit the modality.
Individualization is part of homeopathy - and needs to be incorporated
in any scientific measure of it or its effects - just as drug quantity
and effect needs to be incorporated in allopathy. Disease resistance and
healthy state is the endpoint of homeopathy, but you'd best not try to
find that in allopathy. Allopathy looks for survival time - not health,
not disease resistance.

So we are looking at apples and oranges - and each should be measured by
its own criteria to be properly scientific.

Calling homeopathy unscientific because it does not compare to drug
approaches, is simply unscientific!
To be scientific homeopahty must meet itrs ownobjectives:-)
Not allopathy's okecticves:-)
And vice versa.

Allopathy would fail miserably compared to homeopathy if we tried to
measure how much health and resistance to disease it conferred to those
using it.

So to be scientific we need each science to meet its own objectives -
and using its own methods.
Just as we measure water by volume and want it to be wet. And just as we
measure electricity in amperes and want it to be electrical energy. So
too we measure drugs by survival and we measure homeopathy by health and
disease resistance.

THAT is scientific.
Anything less is comparing apples and oranges and that is totally
unscientific:-)

I also deny that homeopathy cases are "just anecdotal".
That is measuring by allopathy.
We need to keep the apples and oranges separate.
The FACT that homeopathy has *predictability* before any treatment is
given - based on proven facts - makes it a completely different and a
far more scientific system than the allopathic one where a new drug has
totally unknown effects.
How is allopathy "scientific" here compared to homeopathy?

It's allopathy that is unscientific!
It's based on fresh air at best! There is no principle behind it. Just
guesswork from so-called double-blind trials. There is no double-blind
trial that determines the effectiveness of anything for a specific
individial. So how is that scientific?

It's allopathy that lacks pure science, not homeopathy!
Knowing how homeopathy or allopathic drugs work is irrelevant - knowing
THAT homeopathy works, and is based on incontrovertible natural laws -
IS proved and used and scientific.

Somewhere well respected, it is written "Build on the rock......"
That's homeopathy - it has rock-solid natural laws behind it.
Allopathy has none.

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."

Hi Irene Another one allopaths used for so long without any idea how it worked was anaesthetics – only very recently do they have some idea as to how they work.

Was always a good one for medics who gave me hard time about how could I believe in Homoeopathy if I was into science!!! They knocked out – how many people?? With drugs they didn’t know about??? With a percentage that don’t wake up again – or have to be anaesthetised before they waken??? But they look at a lot of Physicists the same way – esp as they say that Homoeopathy is plausible!! I have always been able to use my knowledge of physics and quantum theory to explain enough of how Hom works to satisfy me – but hey after I saw Belladonna (my first ever remedy) work in my baby (no placebo effect there) – I didn’t give a damn about about the science – It works!! – I used it and never fail to marvel at Hahnemanns work. 10 years later I started to train as a homoeopath. Regards Pauline
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Irene de Villiers
Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2007 5:06 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Scientific evidence (was British Homeopathy Backlash)
Finrod wrote:

Me too.
And I do not find homeopathy unscientific at all!
In fact the use of cowpox to cure smallpox - and of other examples found
in nature, of the principle of homeopathy in action showing "similia
similibus curentur" since the time of Hippocrates - is perfectly scientific.

So is all the work on provings of remedies.
To suggest this is less than scientific makes no sense at all:-))

Hahnemann's work was exceptionally scientific and meticulously so.
Just because we can not explain at the atomic level *how* homeopathy
works does not make it any less scientific than anything the allopathic
community uses without knowing how that works!
Aspirin for example - was used for decades with no clue as to how it
works.

Where's the difference. Nobody calls aspirin unscientific.

Only fear calls homeopathy so:-)

Where there are differences - there should be!
Homeopathy uses energy - and allopathy uses chemistry. The yardsticks
for each are different - and each should not be measured by the
yardstick of the other system.

After all, we do not insist that water is measured with a ruler or that
microwaves are measured by weight or that drugs are measured by
resistance to disease.

Homeopathic treatment however can be measured by resistance to disease,
and that's a scientific thing. Allopathic treatment can not be measured
this way as it does not even attempt to give disease resistance. One
might measure survival time after a drug.

So the science has to fit the modality.
Individualization is part of homeopathy - and needs to be incorporated
in any scientific measure of it or its effects - just as drug quantity
and effect needs to be incorporated in allopathy. Disease resistance and
healthy state is the endpoint of homeopathy, but you'd best not try to
find that in allopathy. Allopathy looks for survival time - not health,
not disease resistance.

So we are looking at apples and oranges - and each should be measured by
its own criteria to be properly scientific.

Calling homeopathy unscientific because it does not compare to drug
approaches, is simply unscientific!
To be scientific homeopahty must meet itrs ownobjectives:-)
Not allopathy's okecticves:-)
And vice versa.

Allopathy would fail miserably compared to homeopathy if we tried to
measure how much health and resistance to disease it conferred to those
using it.

So to be scientific we need each science to meet its own objectives -
and using its own methods.
Just as we measure water by volume and want it to be wet. And just as we
measure electricity in amperes and want it to be electrical energy. So
too we measure drugs by survival and we measure homeopathy by health and
disease resistance.

THAT is scientific.
Anything less is comparing apples and oranges and that is totally
unscientific:-)

I also deny that homeopathy cases are "just anecdotal".
That is measuring by allopathy.
We need to keep the apples and oranges separate.
The FACT that homeopathy has *predictability* before any treatment is
given - based on proven facts - makes it a completely different and a
far more scientific system than the allopathic one where a new drug has
totally unknown effects.
How is allopathy "scientific" here compared to homeopathy?

It's allopathy that is unscientific!
It's based on fresh air at best! There is no principle behind it. Just
guesswork from so-called double-blind trials. There is no double-blind
trial that determines the effectiveness of anything for a specific
individial. So how is that scientific?

It's allopathy that lacks pure science, not homeopathy!
Knowing how homeopathy or allopathic drugs work is irrelevant - knowing
THAT homeopathy works, and is based on incontrovertible natural laws -
IS proved and used and scientific.

Somewhere well respected, it is written "Build on the rock......"
That's homeopathy - it has rock-solid natural laws behind it.
Allopathy has none.

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."

Dear Helen and others,

I am always amazed at the fact that even good-intented people are inadequately informed about the several hundred clinical trials as well as the several hundred basic science trials testing homeopathic medicines. It is as though the skeptics are so effective in influencing the mass media that even open-minded people have been misinformed.

Although not all of these studies on homeopathy have had "positive" results and although many of the trials were not the highest quality of scientific controls (this is also true about conventional medicine: the vast majority of studies are poorly designed or implemented), there still have been several dozen clinical trials AND several dozen basic science trials that are high quality in their design and implementation.

For people who want info about the clinical research, I suggest that you consider purchasing the ebook that is a comprehensive and up-to-date review of the clinical trials in homeopathy (this ebook is also a comprehensive guidebook to use homeopathic medicines in primary care). For details and for 6 free sample chapters, go to: http://www.homeopathic.com/store/hfm/ebook_hfm.jsp?m=3
Dana Ullman, MPH
Homeopathic Educational Services
2124 Kittredge St.
Berkeley, CA. 94704
(510)649-0294
(800)359-9051 (orders only in the U.S.)
(510)649-1955 (fax)
dullman@igc.org OR dana@homeopathic.com
http://www.homeopathic.com

Fear? i dont really think so. It is competition,
money and power that causes the attack on homeopathy!
Let's call it for what it is and know the enemy fully.
tanya

On Oct 11, 2007, at 6:35 AM, Tanya Marquette wrote:
Actually individualization is important here too--when we misunderstand
what we are trying to address--e.g. when speaking to an
individual--then we will use the wrong tactics and message to try to
counter it.

Globally and institutionally it's probably competition, money and
power; but in most individuals we'll be speaking to--and in the
individuals that the purveyors of "competititon, money and power" are
speaking to--that is not the driving force. In most *individuals* the
driving force is more apt to be something else--perhaps fear (how can
my children be best "protected"? If people think I'm one of those
[homeopathy-lovers or whatever] they'll think I'm not smart, or
whatever...), or in many cases just inertia--the "bird in hand" has a
big advantage over anything new and unknown.
Shannon

Tanya Marquette wrote:

Competition is only a problem due to fear )

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."