 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008Questions for our anti-statistics friends
I have noticed that many (possibly most) supporters of alternative medicine who post here seem to reject in principle the notion that statistical methods are of any use in determining the efficacy (or lack thereof) of any particular course of medical treatment. Certainly, my repeated offer to explain some of the statistical difficulties in determining the efficacy of alternative treatments has been ignored by all of them. I have two questions for those who reject the evidence brought so far on which conclusions such as the efficacy of vaccination in preventing disease and the lack of demonstrated efficacy of alternative treatments such as acupuncture and homeopathy: (1) Do you believe that smoking cigarettes is detrimental to health? (2) If so, on what evidence do you base your conclusion? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." > I have noticed that many (possibly most) supporters of alternative medicine > who post here seem to reject in principle the notion that statistical [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University I have no problem with statistics, I do have a problem with studies and papers that fail to show their "work" but instead choosing to tell us their so-called finding. But then I don't accept homeopathy. But I don't fully trust vaccines as I don't think the follow up after the use of vaccines has been sufficienct; in other words, I want more numbers and the I want the whole population considered in the final follow up. In the information age this is not too much to ask. I want more than use samplings and educated guesses. Would that cost public health monies, absolutely. Would it be well worth it, I think so. There are other issues as to who is doing the measurements and observations in these studies beyond the numbers. :> (1) Do you believe that smoking cigarettes is detrimental to health? :> (2) If so, on what evidence do you base your conclusion? : There are other issues as to who is doing the measurements : and observations in these studies beyond the numbers. In the meantime, you didn't answer the questions. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." > In article <c325f8a3-9ae4-4958-90b9-03f0e0132...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, trigonometry1...@gmail.com | <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ----- > Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il I addressed what I saw as an underlying issue. As to (1) & (2), well, I believe cigarettes to be harmful because that is the "received wisdom said to be a based on statistics", because smoking increases disease in animal lab subjects, it contains known carcinogens, personal observation of people I've know for the last nearly 60 years and their appearance and healthy outcomes, a the fact a smoke filled room makes the lungs and nasal passages burn if I have a cold, and because MD's at one time recommended smoking;-) to loosen lung mucus build up : As to (1) & (2), well, I believe cigarettes to be harmful : because that is the "received wisdom said to be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : if I have a cold, and because MD's at one time recommended : smoking;-) to loosen lung mucus build up How does a substance become a "known carcinogen"? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." > In article <c846d08a-07ed-437d-9f25-94e3bb72d...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, trigonometry1...@gmail.com | <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and > if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." On May 16, 11:47 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <c846d08a-07ed-437d-9f25-94e3bb72d...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, trigonometry1...@gmail.com | <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and > > if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." Google ate my homework!!! It depends whether one is selling or eating it. It has been my observation that for many substances there are those who will deny it has harmful properties and others who will ignore benefical properties.. It has been my experience, many involved in chemistry deny the risks involved with pesticides, plastics, and petroleum products. Here is your answer: Start with something like an Ames test. Next use various doses on various species of lab animal. Keep those stats. Observe the health of the poor saps the work in the processing plant that makes the chemical of interest. They often get huge doses. Obviously certainty is something of judgement value. And never the trust the Chemical Society opinion of the risks of chemicals. Asking questions is an easy way to burn others time. Now what was your point? I hope you had a purpose beyond burning time. Trig On May 16, 7:11 pm, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" als. > Asking questions is an easy way to burn others time. > Now what was your point? I hope you had a purpose > beyond burning time. > > Trig Well... that's the thing about Richard's posts, one is never quite sure. I think he likes to put little morals or lessons in his posts without stating them explicitly and then we're supposed to figure out what the hell he's talking about. To add to the mystery, there's the end quotes or non-quotes or whatever the hell they're supposed to be. Citizen Jimserac :> Asking questions is an easy way to burn others time. :> Now what was your point? I hope you had a purpose :> beyond burning time. : Well... that's the thing about Richard's posts, one is never : quite sure. Here's the answer for the terminally dense: I was curious what answers I would get. : I think he likes to put little morals or lessons in his posts : without stating them explicitly and then we're supposed : to figure out what the hell he's talking about. *You* are not supposed to figure out what the hell I'm talking about. You're just supposed to use the opportunity to make a fool of yourself. : To add to the mystery, there's the end quotes : or non-quotes or whatever the hell they're supposed to be. And, as usual, you do not fail in your ability to make use of an opportunity. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Compared with Man, we have to admit that the insect does not display what we can describe as intelligence. But don't feel too proud about that, because where there is no intelligence, there is also no stupidity." > In article <e5c8361f-514b-45e0-8230-7f1d473dc...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > we can describe as intelligence. But don't feel too proud about that, because > where there is no intelligence, there is also no stupidity." See, now there is no connection between his endquote (which is unattributed so maybe he made it up, who knows?) and the body of his message... but wait, maybe its some kind of metaphor. Yeah, that's it, is must be some kind of metaphor which we are supposed to figure out. This Richard dude is deep, really deep... (or he doesn't know what the f.ck he's talking about and likes attention... reader's choice). Whatever... I love puzzles, keep it coming Rich. Like Ciao dude! (one hopes he is not inhaling too much bad stuff from those test tubes!) Citizen Jimserac :> "Compared with Man, we have to admit that the insect does not display what :> we can describe as intelligence. But don't feel too proud about that, :> because where there is no intelligence, there is also no stupidity." : See, now there is no connection between his endquote : (which is unattributed so maybe he made it up, who knows?) I will leave it to you and your "common sense" to figure out whether I made up the .sig quote or if I lifted it from another source. If you are even a tenth as smart as you think you are, it should take you under 15 seconds. If I were you, I'd give myself an hour. : Yeah, that's it, is must be some kind of metaphor which : we are supposed to figure out. It's not a metaphor. It's called a .sig quote. In the meantime, you *still* haven't answered the two questions that I asked. What are you afraid of? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Apparently, you take me for a complete fool." "Yeah -- more or less." Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit" > In article <e7dc4ae2-b213-40d3-bf41-2a78a4c9b...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > "Yeah -- more or less." > Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit" Well Rich, now there's the problem, I don't feel it is worth 15 seconds or ANY amount of time more than it takes to read your posts to devote on analyzing them or whatever it takes to understand your message, if there is a message at all. Now, instead of speaking in riddles, metaphors and thinly veiled insults, you DO have the option of explicitly stating your position but... that would require that you step down from the ivory tower and enter the real world of reality and common sense of the rest of us mortals. The choice is yours, but many thanks for at least heeding some of my criticisms and giving an attribution to your last quote! Keep up the great posts, they are of course, always welcome. A humble respondent.... Citizen Jimserac :> In the meantime, you *still* haven't answered the two questions that :> I asked. What are you afraid of? : Now, instead of speaking in riddles, metaphors and thinly veiled insults, : you DO have the option of explicitly stating your position but... I am not speaking in riddles or metaphors: I asked two simple questions the answers to which I was particularly interested in hearing from people who do not accept statistical evidence. I asked the questions because I was curious what answers I would get -- or if I would get any answers at all. I was sort of expecting that I would *not* get any answers, and so far, I have not been particularly disappointed. For what it's worth, I wasn't aware that my insults were thinly veiled. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > For what it's worth, I wasn't aware that my insults were thinly veiled. It's a relative thing. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ >> For what it's worth, I wasn't aware that my insults were thinly veiled. > >It's a relative thing. No point using thinly-veiled insults when the people you're insulting are pretty thick, I say. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan > See, now there is no connection between his endquote > (which is unattributed so maybe he made it up, who knows?) > and the body of his message... but wait, maybe its some kind > of metaphor. Here's a clue: many newsreaders have the ability to randomly select .signature files. In at least one that I know of, .signature is actually a socket and what you get is pretty much like a cookie. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ :> > How does a substance become a "known carcinogen"? : Start with something like an Ames test. : Next use various doses on various species [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : : Obviously certainty is something of judgement value. In other words, statistics is perfectly fine for determining whether or not something is harmful, but not acceptable for determining whether or not something is helpful. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." > In article <806673a2-2559-4f42-bce0-9680f9442...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, trigonometry1...@gmail.com | <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > ----- > "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." How do you get that from what I said? With stats there is the aspect of uncertainty and chance. And with people there seem to be too many variables when they are the subjects of medical experiments for me to always feel comfortable in some conclusions. Sometimes benefits are likely marginal, it the intervention is relatively safe it maybe worthwhile even if a trial gives a null result. What maybe needed is a larger population of subjects or an improved intervention or a improved monitoring of the subjects i.e. lab tests to see if the subject actually implementing the intervention. "The Devil is in the detail. The Great Satan speaks in broad glowing simplifications ;-) "...Trig Don't conflate my views with those of Cee or Citizen J. On May 19, 7:43 pm, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <806673a2-2559-4f42-bce0-9680f9442...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, trigonometry1...@gmail.com | <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Don't conflate my views with those of Cee or Citizen J. Ah but you're on a factual - logical plane and think you are having a rational discussion and, unfortunately, with him that is often not the case. Good luck in trying though, I've given up. Citizen Jimserac : Ah but you're on a factual - logical plane and think you are having a : rational discussion and, unfortunately, with him that is often not the case. At this point, you have demonstrated an inability correctly to identify logical fallacies; you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of, and a lack of interest in learning about, statistical analysis of data; you apparently believe (the extent of your solipsism is not always clear) that reality is determined either by each individual or by a majority vote; you have demonstrated an inability to construct an argument that does not comprise non-sequiturs; you ignore any evidence that your beliefs may not be true. This behavior on your part probably helps explain why you think that *I* am the one who is not having a rational discussion. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Compared with Man, we have to admit that the insect does not display what we can describe as intelligence. But don't feel too proud about that, because where there is no intelligence, there is also no stupidity." On May 16, 5:25 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have noticed that many (possibly most) supporters of alternative medicine > > who post here seem to reject in principle the notion that statistical [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > There are other issues as to who is doing the measurements > and observations in these studies beyond the numbers. Well stated! If we did what you suggest, then things such as Vioxx would not be allowed to happen and yes indeed it WOULD be well worth it. Your comment about follow up tests on the vaccines is a very good point. Only recently, posters on this newsgroup pointed me to the "Francis" report, a test of the polio vaccine done in the mid 1950's, as some sort of holy grail of vaccine testing. Well, it was on a large population sample and it was indeed a double blind placebo test, so far so good. But quietly, after ALL the hoopla had died down, months later one of the vaccine designers mentioned that after 3 months, 44% of those who took all 3 shots of the polio vaccine had NO polio virus antibodies that the vaccine was supposed to stimulate. So... yes the rate of polio incidence did go down but, did the vaccines do it???? There were numerous other statistical errors and flaws in the Francis report and not long after it appeared, there was outrage that a spoiled batch of the vaccine was given. Many people AVOIDED the polio vaccine after that, which makes one wonder if the polio outbreak did not subside of its own accord, as it did in 1916. I disagree with you on Homeopathy... see for example the following links: List of articles by FULLY QUALIFIED RESEARCHERS on Homeopathy http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,257 National Institue of Health government web site on Homeopathy: http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#a1 Brilliant presentation by Dr. Iris Bell M.D. PhD in support of Homeopathy and confirming the accuracy and efficacy of recent reaearch: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M A full list of PEER REVIEWED papers supporting her research can be found at: http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,173 Citizen Jimserac > Only recently, posters on this newsgroup > pointed me to the "Francis" report, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > if the polio outbreak did not subside > of its own accord, as it did in 1916. In order to create an “epidemic” you need lots of ill humans. In the case of polio, at a time when the average wage was only $50 per week, the doctors were offered a bounty of $25 for every case of polio reported. This did generate a lot of kids being reported as having polio. The “iron lung” further frightened the public. Following the introduction of the vaccine, the bounty on polio was dropped. In addition, the diagnostic criteria was changed from 48 hours to two exams over a 3 month period. We also find from the Whale site: Statistics on polio were manipulated. One such way was to redefine the disease, renaming it "viral or aseptic meningitis" or "cocksackie virus". In one US county, for example, in July 1955 there were 273 cases of polio reported for 50 cases of asceptic meningitis, compared to 5 cases of polio in 1966 and 256 cases of aseptic meningitis. These new diagnostic guideline's were issued by the CDC. If you object to polio vaccination, and you get polio--it is usually called "polio." If you have been vaccinated and you get "polio", it is called meningitis. Beddow Bayly, author of the book “The Case Against Vaccination” said: “After vaccination was introduced, cases of aseptic meningitis were more often reported as a separate disease from polio, but such cases were counted as polio before the vaccine was introduced. The Ministry of Health admitted that the vaccine status of the individual is a guiding factor in diagnosis. If a person who is vaccinated contracts the disease, the disease is simply recorded under a different name.” Coxsackievirus and echoviruses can cause paralytic syndromes that are clinically indistinguishable from paralytic poliomyelitis. (John H. Menkes, Textbook Of Child Neurology, 5th ed., page 420) http://www3.bcity.com/harpub/ Does anybody have the book “How to lie with Statistics”. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. : Does anybody have the book _How to lie with Statistics_. I don't have it, but I have read it. In the meantime, are you going to answer the questions? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." On May 16, 8:14 am, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > On May 16, 7:31 am, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > DrCee > You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. You know Cee, you make some good points here. I was 7 years old in 1955 and I can well recall the constant TV depictions of people in iron lungs, the dangers of polio and how everyone should get vaccinated. This was probably the first instance of big vacco hooking up with big pharma and the then young TV media. We all bought it hook, line and non-existent antibodies. Some people somewhere had figured out that with this wonderful new "TV" media, they could scare people enough to make MILLIONS of dollars in profits. The Francis report is more full of holes than Swiss Cheese, but you've got to remember that in those days, the word of a Doctor or scientists was VERY respected and nobody (or very few) in the general population questioned them or talked back to them. What "saved" a lot of people, including my family, was the bad batch of vaccine. Once word of that got out, a LOT of people would no longer go back for the 2d or 3d polio shots. And yet the great polio epidemic subsided. Note the 3 key things which are still being used in this era -> MISINFORMATION, FEAR MONGERING, and APPEALS TO AUTHORITY. It's been done so many times that all but the most gullible can see right through it nowdays. Citizen Jimserac > You know Cee, you make some good points > here. I was 7 years old in 1955 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of big vacco hooking up with big pharma > and the then young TV media. I remember films of WWII -- which was, apparently, also faked. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > On May 16, 8:14 am, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > Citizen Jimserac- If there was any doubt that you are a moron, this post removes all of it. Your post is ripe with misinformation (in your case, lying), fear mong4ring and false appeals to authority. > On May 16, 4:56 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > Your post is ripe with misinformation (in your case, lying), fear > mong4ring and false appeals to authority. Mark Probert!!!!!! Man, you reply fast and... Oh no! wait!! I have a ban in effect against replying to YOU! I've done it again... oh how could I...??? Ban reinstituted. Citizen JImserac > > On May 16, 4:56 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > > Citizen JImserac- Cannot deal with it, eh? All you have to do is prove that "like cures like" and that water has memory. Otherwise, your claims are all logical fallacies. All of them. "Mark S Probert" Merrick, NY On May 16, 7:31 am, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > Only recently, posters on this newsgroup > pointed me to the "Francis" report, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > if the polio outbreak did not subside > of its own accord, as it did in 1916. In order to create an “epidemic” you need lots of ill humans. In the case of polio, at a time when the average wage was only $50 per week, the doctors were offered a bounty of $25 for every case of polio reported. This did generate a lot of kids being reported as having polio. The “iron lung” further frightened the public. Following the introduction of the vaccine, the bounty on polio was dropped. In addition, the diagnostic criteria was changed from 48 hours to two exams over a 3 month period. We also find from the Whale site: Statistics on polio were manipulated. One such way was to redefine the disease, renaming it "viral or aseptic meningitis" or "cocksackie virus". In one US county, for example, in July 1955 there were 273 cases of polio reported for 50 cases of asceptic meningitis, compared to 5 cases of polio in 1966 and 256 cases of aseptic meningitis. These new diagnostic guideline's were issued by the CDC. If you object to polio vaccination, and you get polio--it is usually called "polio." If you have been vaccinated and you get "polio", it is called meningitis. Beddow Bayly, author of the book “The Case Against Vaccination” said: “After vaccination was introduced, cases of aseptic meningitis were more often reported as a separate disease from polio, but such cases were counted as polio before the vaccine was introduced. The Ministry of Health admitted that the vaccine status of the individual is a guiding factor in diagnosis. If a person who is vaccinated contracts the disease, the disease is simply recorded under a different name.” Coxsackievirus and echoviruses can cause paralytic syndromes that are clinically indistinguishable from paralytic poliomyelitis. (John H. Menkes, Textbook Of Child Neurology, 5th ed., page 420) http://www3.bcity.com/harpub/ Does anybody have the book “How to lie with Statistics”. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. PM This sort of nonsense makes me so angry, because neither of these two (DrCEE and Jimserac), have sufficient personal scientific or medical knowledge to have any way of assessing the veracity of the material they mouth. The desire seems to be to agitate, to demean honest attempts to spare children death and paralysis, and to hell with the consequences. There is no question that epidemics of infantile paralysis (Polio) have stopped in vaccinated populations, whereas they continue in the unvaccinated, these days usually because of similar malicious misinformation. Misdiagnosis? No other virus has EVER produced the epidemics of paralysis that polio did and still does. Not only that, but the diagnosis of polio can be made precisely by virus culture these days, and even different strains identified. James, you know so little about epidemic illnesses that you "wonder if the polio outbreak did not subside of its own accord, as it did in 1916." James, ALL epidemics eventually subside of their own accord -- that is part of what "epidemic" means. Do some honest homework and work out why for yourself. DrCee, read up about these old epidemics and note that the disappearance of all the paralysed kids, and the wards full of on respirators, cannot possibly be explained by diagnosing polio as something else. PM > PM This sort of nonsense makes me so angry, because neither of these two > (DrCEE andJimserac), have sufficient personal scientific or medical [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > PM Well, we must have really pulled your chain there to get you all riled up. So it's OK to call Homeopathy nonsense or based on placebo but when people start criticizing your favorite modalities its another story huh? Well, one of those vaccine inventors specifically stated that 3 months after the "inoculations" there were no polio virus antibodies that were supposed to have been stimulated by the vaccine in 44% of those vaccinated. 44%??? THAT'S NEARLY HALF OF THOSE WHO GOT THE VACCINE. What, do the antibodies just fade out in such a short period of time? If so, people would need polio vaccinations every 3 months. Is that why the BOOSTER shots were needed? I don't have to be a virologist or epidemiologist to see that something is very wrong here, it is simple common sense. You go ahead and be angry as you like and meanwhile I WILL CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT THE SAME SCIENTIFIC RULES WHICH YOU FOLKS REQUIRE OF HOMEOPATHY BE APPLIED TO EVERYTHING ELSE TOO. No double standards today or any day. SO then, the polio vaccine must have worked by placebo effect, if it had any role at all in the ending of that epidemic. Citizen Jimserac >> PM This sort of nonsense makes me so angry, because neither of these >> two [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > vaccinations every 3 months. Is that > why the BOOSTER shots were needed? So bloody what, if one batch of one of the early vaccines did not produce a detectable immune response in some? That is does not mean that no immunity was conferred, the relevant immune cells may still have been sensitised to a degree not detected by this crude test. And it is not that unusual for vaccines to vary in potency, even today, with low-potency vaccines being withdrawn. . > I don't have to be a virologist or > epidemiologist to see that something [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > WHICH YOU FOLKS REQUIRE OF HOMEOPATHY > BE APPLIED TO EVERYTHING ELSE TOO. No what you need to do is to stand back and look at ALL the evidence. The fact is that the only epidemic illnesses that we do not see any more are those that are vaccinated against. In countries that have high levels of vaccination we only see these illnesses when vaccination levels drop or in communities that object to vaccination. You cannot deny these facts, no matter how much you might grub around looking for virtually irrelevant material; like this. I call ALL the evidence to bear upon homeopathy, including YOUR own everyday experience that no matter how often you dilute and shake your morning coffee it never increases its biological effects (i.e taste, stimulant and diuretic) as homeopathy predicts it should. You are the one who wants to limit evidence to a selected few positive studies, and weak laboratory studies and anecdote. I recently tried to point out that "science" includes all human experience not just that done in studies or laboratories. In fact, lots of people thought homeopathy was just plain silly before ever clinical trials were even invented, and there was almost no such thing as biological science. And two hundred years later there is still no support for its several core propositions. The dilution thiung is only a small part of homeopathy's grossly inprobable and completely unsupported hypotheses, as I have many times pointed out. Here we have just one simple hypothesis and the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the effectiveness of vaccines.. PM >In fact, lots of people thought homeopathy was just plain silly before ever >clinical trials were even invented, and there was almost no such thing as >biological science. 1842 Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions Oliver Wendell Holmes http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/homeopathyholmes.htm And if you want to see a bit of the history of the shredding of any plausibility for homeopathy, go to "Still Deluded After All These Years": http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ausscience0607.htm  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > >In fact, lots of people thought homeopathy was just plain silly before ever > >clinical trials were even invented, and there was almost no such thing as > >biological science. Yeah, those same people were drinking Mercury and getting bled to death -> they thought was OK too. Here... List of articles on Homeopathy http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/introductory.jsp Homeopathic Treatment for Epidemics and Trauma http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/services/crises/general_info.jsp National Institue of Health government web site on Homeopathy: http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#a1 Brilliant presentation by Dr. Iris Bell M.D. PhD in support of Homeopathy and confirming the accuracy and efficacy of recent reaearch: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M A full list of PEER REVIEWED papers supporting her research can be found at: http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,173 (shock! they're not all Homeopathy journals!) But, I urge caution -> the SHOCK of reading genuine research may be TOO MUCH for YOUR delusions. Citizen Jimserac ps Go to the American Academy of Medical Acupuncture web site at: http://www.medicalacupuncture.com/aama_marf/journal/index.html Click on the back issues on the left and read HUNDREDS of articles reporting research by M.D.'s on its use for MANY conditions, illnesses and diseases, much of the research by M.D.'s skilled in acupuncture; then slap yourself on the head for being so gullible as to believe the nonsense you've read or been told to believe Citizen Jimserac >> >In fact, lots of people thought homeopathy was just plain silly before ever >> >clinical trials were even invented, and there was almost no such thing as >> >biological science. > > Yeah, those same people were drinking Mercury > and getting bled to death -> they thought was OK too. Are you looking for someone to defend the practices of 18th century medicine? As far as I know, only Cee is still on the "balance of humors, disease is the body expelling poisons and returning itself to balance" theory with contempt for actually bothering to find out whether your "treatments" actually work. However, the fact that they were wrong doesn't make everyone else right who criticized them. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ >> >In fact, lots of people thought homeopathy was just plain silly before >> >ever [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yeah, those same people were drinking Mercury > and getting bled to death -> they thought was OK too. Yes, physicians thought these methods worked for thousands of years, for the same reasons that homeopaths think their treatments work and that acupuncturists think their treatments work, and that placebos seem to work. They are still (mostly) honest practitioners, being misled by what are now quite well-known phenomena and the quite obvious fact that any treatment at all can satisfy some of the needs that people bring into medical consultations, including a measure of symptom relief. Why else all the cure-alls throughout medical history and especially within the crazy extremes of "alternative" medicine? I mean, science is on occasions wrong about what it predicts, or more usually partially wrong, but not about so many matters at the one time! Surely even alternative supporters don't think ALL alternative claims are based upon valid medical theory. Yet they all have their utterly convinced clients and practitioners. And what one person might find medically helpful, another finds terminally ridiculous. There has to be a single unifying explanation for so much extraordinarily diverse and weird (scientifically) medical activity. Incidentally, it does not bother me in the slightest to admit that this phenomenon applies equally within conventional medicine. That is where we discovered that doctors are generally hopeless at assessing what certain types of medical treatment actually do. It is why clinical trials were invented. Patients may be more reliable, but still prone to suggestion and personal biases. PM. > Surely even alternative > supporters don't think ALL alternative claims are based upon valid medical > theory. Have you ever seen advocates of totally irreconcilable schools of sectarian medicine argue with each other? | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ >> Surely even alternative >> supporters don't think ALL alternative claims are based upon valid [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Have you ever seen advocates of totally irreconcilable > schools of sectarian medicine argue with each other? Oh no! It is very bad form to do so!. The most you will get is "Well I personally don't hold with that, but if it helps some people ----". I can even go part of the way with this -- it is the exaggerated claims, scientific pretentions and blatant fraud that arouse my antipathy. PM it is the exaggerated claims, > scientific pretentions and blatant fraud that arouse my antipathy. > > PM Well, I can agree with that. That is why I oppose the current medical monopoly called allopathy, or modern medicine, or evidence based medicine, or western medicine, or whatever. Your concept of cut, burn, and poison for remission of disease is scientific pretention, medical egotism, and absolute fraud. You cannot poison the sick into becoming well. You cannot vaccinate to prevent disease. You and yours are the fraud meisters, the quacks of modern medicine. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. : Your concept of cut, burn, and poison for remission of disease is : scientific pretention, medical egotism, and absolute fraud. Why don't you answer the questions that were posed at the beginning of this thread, viz. (1) Do you believe that smoking is harmful to one's health? (2) If so, on what evidence do you base this belief? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Apparently, you take me for a complete fool." "Yeah -- more or less." Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit" "Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote in message ZZzz. *Substantial* *real* *convincing* *hard* *clear-cut* *reasonable* *significant* *credible* *compelling* *copious* *direct* *reliable* *adequate* *definite* *valid* > >In fact, lots of people thought homeopathy was just plain silly before ever > >clinical trials were even invented, and there was almost no such thing as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/homeopathyholmes.htm More proof of my statement that OWH and OWH, Jr. are two of the greatest minds in the last several centuries. Note that he wrote this before BIGPharma. > And if you want to see a bit of the history of the shredding of any > plausibility for homeopathy, go to "Still Deluded After All These [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com "Mark S Probert" Merrick, NY reposts lying Peter Ragbat's lying web sites..... <snip> : More proof of my statement that OWH and OWH, Jr. are two of the : greatest minds in the last several centuries. Yeah, that Supreme Court decision in which Junior explained why eugenic sterilization is a Good Thing is one for the ages. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" From Dana Ullman's website excerpts from his outstanding book, The Homeopathic Revolution" http://www.homeopathicrevolution.com/pages/excerpt.jsp Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. had written a book extremely critical of homeopathy, though embarrassingly ill-informed on the subject. Because Dr. Holmes had such respect for Washington Irving, the doctor chose to visit him and suggest treatment for Irving's asthma and cough. He prescribed medicated cigarettes and "Jonas Whitcomb's Cough Remedy" (a nineteenth-century patent medicine), without having examined his patient. Dr. Peters wrote an admirably restrained reply to Holmes, suggesting that his treatment was not based on adequate understanding of this patient. Dr. Peters gave Irving the patent medicine to show good faith toward Dr. Holmes, despite Holmes's bad-faith actions toward homeopathy. Irving experienced noticeable improvement that first night from this remedy. However, two days later he suffered a severe nervous attack, and Dr. Peters then chose to use only homeopathic medicines for Irving (Hendrick 1987, 174). Temporary improvement followed by the development of different and more serious symptoms are typical results from conventional drugs of the nineteenth century as well as today, and while conventional physicians pride themselves on their ability to reduce or suppress symptoms, homeopaths have sharply criticized such treatments that provide short-term benefits but long-term problems." I will direct your attention PARTICULARLY to that last sentence about short-term benefits and suppression of symptoms. Here are some quotes from people about Ullman's recent "The Homeopathic Revolution" book, several of them former or CURRENT medical school professors: from http://www.homeopathicrevolution.com/ Kenneth R. Pelletier, PhD, MD Author, The Best Alternative Medicine: What Works? What Does Not? Former Clinical Professor of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine; Presently, Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of Arizona; Director of the Corporate Health Improvement Program which is a research program including such Fortune 500 companies as Corning, IBM, Dow, Ford, Nestle, and NASA. "The pharmaceutic industry will hate this book almost as much as the AMA. KUDOS, Dana Ullman, for providing the foundations for a broader understanding of this far safer approach to health." C. Norman Shealy, M.D., Ph.D. Neurosurgeon and Pain Management Specialist Founding President, American Holistic Medical Association President, Holos University Graduate Seminary "Homeopathy is perhaps the most misunderstood area of medicine, evoking passions pro and con. In THE HOMEOPATHIC REVOLUTION, Dana Ullman, one of the world's foremost authorities, illuminates this field for laypersons and professionals alike. Like a medical detective, Ullman probes the corners of history and science in a delightful, fascinating romp. Highly recommended." Larry Dossey, MD Author, The Extraordinary Healing Power of Ordinary Things "How do we reconcile the fact that the American Medical Association has long held homeopathy to be worthless, when so many people have reported that they found help for their ills in homeopathy? The AMA responds that patients are unqualified to evaluate the treatment they receive. I think that attitude is phenomenally patronizing, and I think that Dana Ullman has done us a major service in showing that many of the smartest and most successful people in recent history have publicly expressed appreciation for the benefits they have received from homeopathy." John Robbins, Author of Diet For A New America, and Healthy At 100. "Several Harvard-affiliated physicians have told me in private conversation that homeopathy has helped their family members or friends, but they would not want to say so publicly due to fear of ridicule. Hopefully, this book will help open-minded doctors and scientists to realize they are not alone and to have the courage to call for more research on this most interesting and paradoxical form of treatment." David Anick PhD MD Research Associate, McLean Hospital Harvard Medical School "Dana Ullman takes the reader from the origins of homeopathy as a 19th century system of medicine into a 21st century science. Through this fascinating ride of medical history, he shows us that many of the world's most famous and respected people of the past 200 years have advocated for and appreciated this other approach to medicine. I am personally amazed that so many of my cultural heroes have benefited from this misunderstood science and healing art. Homeopathy deserves a definitive place in health care today." Leonard A. Wisneski, MD, FACP, An endocrinologist and Clinical Professor of Medicine at George Washington University Medical Center; Adjunct Faculty in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics at Georgetown University; Authored over 30 scientific articles and a textbook, The Scientific Basis of Integrative Medicine Do you STILL persist in your irrational denialism? Citizen Jimserac > Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. had > written a book extremely critical [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > his treatment was not based on > adequate understanding of this patient. based on the principles of homeopathy, cigarettes would be an excellent choice as a treatment for asthma. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <a2ac60cb-8498-4f11-9739-aee74d09e...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | > +--- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---+ Perhaps, but ONLY in HIGH dilution!!! Why did the Homeopathic patient expire? He forgot to take his remedy and died of an overdose!!! Citizen Jimserac "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message >>In fact, lots of people thought homeopathy was just plain silly before >>ever [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.ratbags.comLIES "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message >>In fact, lots of people thought homeopathy was just plain silly before >>ever [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles--LIES > So bloody what, if one batch of one of the early vaccines did not produce a > detectable immune response in some? That is does not mean that no > immunity was conferred, the relevant immune cells may still have been > sensitised to a degree not detected by this crude test. Ah!!!! You mean just as with Homeopathy!! Yes, I could see that! And it is not that > unusual for vaccines to vary in potency, even today, with low-potency > vaccines being withdrawn. . Unacceptable. This kind of one size fits all medicine needs to be modernized. A system of medicine which individualizes the remedy to the specific person is needed... like Homeopathy. > > I don't have to be a virologist or > > epidemiologist to see that something [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > WHICH YOU FOLKS REQUIRE OF HOMEOPATHY > > BE APPLIED TO EVERYTHING ELSE TOO. > No what you need to do is to stand back and look at ALL the evidence. The > fact is that the only epidemic illnesses that we do not see any more are [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > In fact, lots of people thought homeopathy was just plain silly before ever > clinical trials were even invented, Yup, those are the ones rushing to their appointes for Mercury treatments and to get bloodletting! and there was almost no such thing as > biological science. And two hundred years later there is still no support > for its several core propositions. The dilution thiung is only a small part > of homeopathy's grossly inprobable and completely unsupported hypotheses, as > I have many times pointed out. OK, then how the hell did Hahnemann and every other Homeoapathic prover experience the symptoms of the disease the substance was designed to treat?? Remember, that's how this all started, Hahneman took some malaria symptom producing substance and got the symptoms of malaria. Homeopathic provings go through an elaborate process and are repeated over a period of time by several people. The stuff they are "proving" is UNKNOWN to them, all they do is report their effects. That's the part that orthodox medicine has trouble with, this selective BLINDNESS if something is announced which goes contrary to their theories: Example: A researcher claims that bacteria are the cause of some types of peptic ulcer and orthodox medicine all but ridicules the idea and dismisses it contemptuously. The researcher publishes research it it gets discounted. Funding starts to be denied. Finally the researcher figures out the ideal way to PROVE his theory - he INJECTS himself with h. pylorii and later demonstrates to everyone that he has (SURPRISE!) pyloric ulcers. THAT is what Homeopathy does on a regular basis. > Here we have just one simple hypothesis and the evidence is overwhelmingly > in favour of the effectiveness of vaccines.. > > PM I'm NOT SO SURE OF THAT ANYMORE, but there is ONE THING that I am sure of and I will repeat it... WHATEVER standards are applied to Homeopathy to prove its efficacy and veracity, should be applied to orthodox medicine and vaccination too. If they can't cut it than I will level the SAME CRITICISMS against them, that are leveled against Homeopathy when ITS research is discounted. When ALL of Homeopathy is questioned on the basis of one or a few failed tests then I have the right to challenge ALL of vaccination when some of their tests fail or the desired antibodies are NOT produced. It is THAT simple, there are no double standards. Now go check with Peter Bowditch if he'd like to revise his opinion about ignoring ALL Homeopathy research journals and ALL its articles, published by perfectly well qualified experts, many of them MD's Citizen Jimserac > OK, then how the hell did Hahnemann and every other Homeoapathic > prover experience the symptoms of the disease the substance was > designed to treat?? Remember, that's how this all started, > Hahneman took some malaria symptom producing substance > and got the symptoms of malaria. /post hoc ergo propter hoc/ for starters. He took some a small dose of barley and over the next few weeks recorded every sensation he experienced. Did he have an erection? Then barley produces engorgement. Did he feel sleepy? Then barley produces drowsyness. Did he awake? Barley is a stimulant. Did he feel hunger? Barley produces sensations of hunger. Did his bladder fill? Barley causes urgency of urination. (For the rhetorically impaired, I use barley as a fictitious example. The /Materia Medica/ and Hahnemann's more discursive writings are full of detailed examples.) And so on. To the tune (per his /Materia Medica/) of over a thousand symptoms for many substances. Each "symptom" is ascribed entirely to the sole account of the substance being "proved." > Homeopathic provings go through an elaborate process and are repeated > over a period of time by several people. The stuff they are "proving" > is UNKNOWN to them, all they do is report their effects. Please recount where these "several people" are found. Hahnemann only describes single individuals, usually himself alone, for each. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > That's the part that orthodox medicine has trouble with, > this selective BLINDNESS if something is announced > which goes contrary to their theories: In contrast to how homeopathy deals with matters such as acquired immunity. > Example: A researcher claims that bacteria are the cause > of some types of peptic ulcer and orthodox medicine > all but ridicules the idea and dismisses it contemptuously. When did this happen (warning: trick question)? | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ >> PM This sort of nonsense makes me so angry, because neither of these two >> (DrCEE andJimserac), have sufficient personal scientific or medical [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Well, we must have really pulled your chain >there to get you all riled up. Some people get "all riled up" when they see something that's really dumb. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan > <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > PM- Excellent post, unfortunely, it falls on empty heads. :> > (1) Do you believe that smoking cigarettes is detrimental to health? :> > (2) If so, on what evidence do you base your conclusion? Notice that yet another anti-statistics person failed to answer the questions. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- The gardener plants an evergreen whilst trampling on a flower. . . > In article <8b42e980-5756-4670-adfe-1901d285e...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ----- > The gardener plants an evergreen whilst trampling on a flower. . . Richard!!!! How ya doin!! I did not answer your questions? Well, I've got to read some more "Prisma", a really great Homeopathy book by Hans Vermeulen right now. I've got a question for YOU -> How did the tobacco industry answer YOUR questions, could it be that they used STATISTICS????????????? Like ciao dude! James > I have noticed that many (possibly most) supporters of alternative medicine > who post here seem to reject in principle the notion that statistical > methods are of any use in determining the efficacy (or lack thereof) of > any particular course of medical treatment. Certainly, my repeated offer > to explain some of the statistical difficulties in determining the > efficacy of alternative treatments has been ignored by all of them. Richard, I am surprised at you. I thought you are a learned man. Do you not realize that Alties ARE using statistics? They use AltStatistics. AltStatistics has two principles: 1) Efficacy of any alternative treatment is proven beyond a doubt when one person says it "helped" them. 2) Any statistical proof that 1) is fallacious is rejected, since it is made by someone who does not believe in Altie Treatment. > I have two questions for those who reject the evidence brought so > far on which conclusions such as the efficacy of vaccination in preventing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (1) Do you believe that smoking cigarettes is detrimental to health? > (2) If so, on what evidence do you base your conclusion? > I have noticed that many (possibly most) supporters of alternative medicine > who post here seem to reject in principle the notion that statistical [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > (1) Do you believe that smoking cigarettes is detrimental to health? Yes. > (2) If so, on what evidence do you base your conclusion? The surgeon general's warning. > ----- > Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." On May 16, 7:36 pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I have noticed that many (possibly most) supporters of alternative medicine > > who post here seem to reject in principle the notion that statistical [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The surgeon general's warning. Oops! I forgot to include these links; particularly to the NIH regarding smoking: http://health.nih.gov/result.asp/605 http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/index.htm http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/cessation/en/ And yes, I work with several smoking cessation patients every month. > > ----- > > Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Show quoted text - :> > (1) Do you believe that smoking cigarettes is detrimental to health? :> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] : : http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/cessation/en/ If you believe that statistical evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the harmful effects of smoking, why do you refuse even to acknowledge the studies that I posted that present statistical evidence that acupuncture works no better than a placebo? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." > In article <dee788a1-bfba-42d6-9f03-f1877b8a5...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > the studies that I posted that present statistical evidence that > acupuncture works no better than a placebo? Because the evidence indicates otherwise. Now, for some other statistics that you'll really like! For over 10 years, Acupuncture has been acknowledged by mainstream medicine as effective in treating several disorders. Today, pain & nausea are routinely treated with acupuncture; often in hospitals. In the UK, 86% of pain complaints are treated with acupuncture ahead of drugs or other methods. That isn't suprising, given that over half of the GPs in the UK want to learn acupuncture and practice it on their patients. In the USA, over 60% of medical doctors believe that acupuncture is at least somewhat effective. Many people would probably express some degree of surprise at that high a level of acceptance from MD's. This was so distressing to Richard Schultz, he felt compelled to ask what % of MD's could pass a statistics course. Obviously, he feels that if their ability to read medical studies were up to his level of statistical savvy, they'd come to his negative conclusion. At any rate, the answer is 100%, but that won't matter to him. He doesn't accept that medical schools mandate that all students complete standard courses, of which statistics is one. Truly, the tipping point has been reached & passed. Acupuncture has grown greatly in its acceptance and use since the 1997 NIH Consensus Statement. Not only does a majority of the US & UK public accept it, so do their healthcare providers. Perhaps we've reached the point where it should be considered mainstream, like physical therapy, not alternative, like chiropractic. > ----- > Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." On May 18, 9:21 am, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > In article <dee788a1-bfba-42d6-9f03-f1877b8a5...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > the point where it should be considered mainstream, like physical > therapy, not alternative, like chiropractic. Excellent points ! (No pun intended!!). As for what is mainstream and what is not mainstream, could we move "chemotherapy" out of the "mainstream" area into the "high risk" cateogry. :> If you believe that statistical evidence is sufficient to demonstrate :> the harmful effects of smoking, why do you refuse even to acknowledge :> the studies that I posted that present statistical evidence that :> acupuncture works no better than a placebo? : : Because the evidence indicates otherwise. That's because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of any evidence that contradicts your beliefs. For example, I am quite sure that you did *not* show the patients whom you are treating to quit smoking the article "A Meta-Analysis of Acupuncture Techniques for Smoking Cessation" by Adrian R. White, Karl-Ludwig Resch, and Edzard Ernst, that appeared in the journal _Tobacco Control_ (a publication of the British Medical Journal) (Tob. Control 1999, vol. 8, pp. 393-397). I will quote the conclusion for your benefit. CONCLUSIONS -- Acupuncture was not superior to sham acupuncture for smoking cessation; no particular aspect of acupuncture technique was associated with a positive effect. The conclusions are limited by methodological inadequacies of studies and by the absence of testable hypotheses; design of future trials should avoid these deficiencies. I would guess that you probably *did* show them the article "Auricular Acupuncture, Education, and Smoking Cessation" by I. D. Bier et al. (Am. J. Pub. Health, vol. 92, pp. 1642 - 1647), becuase the authors claimed that Acupuncture was more effective than sham acupuncture, and it's not until nearly the end of the article that they explain that due to the high dropout rate, the differences were not statistically significant. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" > In article <51cd12d2-8c8b-44de-b2d7-afef9f3e0...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That's because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of any evidence that > contradicts your beliefs. Why do you constantly have to lie? What is it that compels a chemistry professor to lie without remorse about a topic he doesn't even have a vague clue about? In the face of your repeated lie that I would never accept any acupuncture study that had a negative result, I posted some. You've even commented on that fact. In other words, that is truely your MO; lies, strawmen, and a contant whine of "placebo". Are you capable of discussing acupuncture without repeatedly lying about what YOU have said, what I have said, and what is written on webpages I have cited? Is it just the topic of Acupuncture or do you consider lying justifiable across the board? If not, why do you feel the end always justifies the means (your repeated lies about what YOU have said, what I have said, what is on webpages, and what pages you cited and falsely attritbute to me)? What is completely obvious to anyone is that your objection to acupuncture far proceeded any examination of the evidence. You refuse to acknowledge the abundant evidence of acupuncture efficacy. That's true to form because you pre-rejected it before being aware of the evidence. Don't you remember that hair-brained statement you made? It goes something like this: "what is well known is that acupuncture does not work" What is well known about Richard Schultz is that he'll lie without remorse. :> That's because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of any evidence that :> contradicts your beliefs. : : Why do you constantly have to lie? It's not a lie. I posted a number of studies that provided evidence that acupuncture is not effective. Not only did you not respond to the evidence presented, you didn't even acknowledge it. I offered on several occasions to discuss with you the statistical difficulties associated with determining the efficacy (or lack thereof) of an "alternative" treatment such as acupuncture. You ignored the offer every time that it was made. How would you describe that behavior other than refusing to acknowledge the existence of any evidence that contradicts your beliefs? You seem to forget that I have already shown that by your peculiar definition of "liar," you yourself have posted "lies" here. In the meantime, any time that you want to discuss the evidence that acupuncture is not effective, you know where to find me. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" > In article <401ab85b-c514-4a62-b755-5f06cdd26...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's not a lie. Yes, it is. Web Results 1 - 10 of about 475,000 for acupuncture is effective. (0.22 seconds) > ----- > Richard Schultz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �schu...@mail.biu.ac.il > In article <401ab85b-c514-4a62-b755-5f06cdd26...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > You seem to forget that I have already shown that by your peculiar definition > of "liar," you yourself have posted "lies" here. Peculiar? I cited specific examples of you going far beyond misquoting me. I even warned you that I was going to post specific examples of you fabricating statements and attributing them to me. You replied by telling me to go ahead and see what happens. What happened is that you keep lying and got caught. Tell me, Richard, have you ever had another usenet discussion where you: A. Created claims out of whole cloth and attributed to them to the other poster B. Tried to discredit another poster's argument by falsely stating that they based on a website that YOU cited, not they C. Repeatedly denied that specific things were stated on a website when ever you had previously agreed they were and are there D. Repeatedly lied about your own beliefs, even when they are preserved in the google archive I tend to doubt it. Perhaps you'll prove me wrong by showing me some threads wherein you've done all or most of the above. What is really surprising is that as a professor, you see nothing wrong with making this statement: "I am not making any assumption of the source. That is why I have *always* treated acupuncture as something "not proven," as opposed to, say, homeopathy. I have never said that I do not believe that acupuncture works, only that *if* it works, it is not by restoring balance to one's Qi." Having already said: ""what is well known is that acupuncture does not work." So, _you_ think, I have a peculiar definition of "lie". Obviously, you prefer a definition that allows you to be deliberately false. The rest of us are happy with the dictionary definition. You'll just have to settle for your well practiced rationalizations. > In the meantime, any time that you want to discuss the evidence that > acupuncture is not effective, you know where to find me. In the meantime, you'll be seeing more and more acupuncture. > ----- > Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your > truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" :> In the meantime, any time that you want to discuss the evidence that :> acupuncture is not effective, you know where to find me. : : In the meantime, you'll be seeing more and more acupuncture. In other words, you treat any evidence against the efficacy of acupuncture by ignoring it. Any time that you want to discuss any of the numerous studies that I have cited, or discuss how statistics enter into the issue of estimating the efficacy of a proposed medical treatment, I will be happy to respond. From now on, any accusations on your part that I am "lying" will be ignored. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" > In article <badfa6ab-e38c-4116-a0e5-683aecb8a...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > In other words, yo |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message