Homeopathy (again)

[Shaker]

So what? Do you think the broad mass of the general public are sufficiently informed on the issue - which involves being able to evaluate scientific evidence - to be able to offer a valid opinion?

[Hope]

So what? Do you think the broad mass of the general public are sufficiently informed on the issue - which involves being able to evaluate scientific evidence - to be able to offer a valid opinion?

Well, since it appears that scierntists haven't been able to come to a conclusive opinion, then yes, I think the general public are no less able to come to one.

[Hope]

I doubt the consultant has actually done any controlled scientific testing on this and can be just as open to confirmation bias and the like as anyone else. I note he said at one point he 'believed' it worked but didn't provide any stats himself rather quoted other studies.

A criticism that equally applies to the charity who, if you look at their website, are clearly biased towards scientific rationality as the only way forward for humanity - like some here - despite their having no evidence to back this belief up.

[Shaker]

Well, since it appears that scierntists haven't been able to come to a conclusive opinion, then yes, I think the general public are no less able to come to one.

There isn't even a conclusive opinion on evolution, since in any group so large you will always find a few cranks and crackpots who put some lunatic ideology ahead of empirical evidence. Nevertheless, there is an overwhelming consensus based on the evidence that evolution is true and real and the same goes for homeopathy - the consensus being that it has no effect according to what is claimed for it by its adherents and nothing beyond the placebo effect.

[Shaker]

I doubt the consultant has actually done any controlled scientific testing on this and can be just as open to confirmation bias and the like as anyone else. I note he said at one point he 'believed' it worked but didn't provide any stats himself rather quoted other studies.

A criticism that equally applies to the charity who, if you look at their website, are clearly biased towards scientific rationality as the only way forward for humanity - like some here - despite their having no evidence to back this belief up.

You must live in a cave somewhere ... or Wales, which in parts is functionally equivalent. Most normal people who live normal lives in the real world are well aware of what scientific rationality has done for humanity as compared to unscientific irrationality. The evidence is all around us.

I'm going for a CT scan soon. You can't pray that shit into existence.

[Hope]

You must live in a cave somewhere ... or Wales, which in parts is functionally equivalent. Most normal people who live normal lives in the real world are well aware of what scientific rationality has done for humanity as compared to unscientific irrationality. The evidence is all around us.

Oddly enough, I doubt that many have suggested that 'what scientific rationality has done for humanity' is anything nless than phenomenal.  What they have said though is that it isn't the be-all and end-all, as you like to claim.

I'm going for a CT scan soon. You can't pray that shit into existence.

I'm not sure that anyone has claimed that one can.  What one can do, though, is believe that engineers and others used God-given brains to develop such things - things that I have also recently experienced.  Can you provide any evidence to show that that belief is an erroneous belief.

I realise that you will likely hide behind your much beloved 'negative proof fallacy' cop-out, because, whenever you are challenged to provide some evidence for your world-view, you usually do.  It's up to you to decide whether you are too much of a coward to face the challenge or not.

(edited to add 'proof' into the 'negative ... fallacy' phrase - remembered that I'd missed it out at 2am this morning!!)

[Shaker]

Oddly enough, I doubt that many have suggested that 'what scientific rationality has done for humanity' is anything nless than phenomenal.  What they have said though is that it isn't the be-all and end-all, as you like to claim.

Well, you certainly don't offer any evidence for your assertion, do you?

I'm not sure that anyone has claimed that one can.  What one can do, though, is believe that engineers and others used God-given brains to develop such things - things that I have also recently experienced.

This is of course a completely gratuitous, entirely extraneous, wholly unwarranted assumption which violates Occam's Razor. What explains CT scanners, quantum electrodynamics, the eradication of smallpox and probes on Mars most parsimonously - (a) clever boffins + God or (b) just clever boffins? It's (b), since (a) is resolutely unsubstantiated. 

Can you provide any evidence to show that that belief is an erroneous belief.

There we go! I knew it wouldn't be long.

I realise that you will likely hide behind your much beloved 'negative fallacy' cop-out, because, whenever you are challenged to provide some evidence for your world-view, you usually do.  It's up to you to decide whether you are too much of a coward to face the challenge or not.

You really don't read posts at all, do you? There's nothing beloved about the negative proof fallacy. I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing it, but you don't seem to realise - or perhaps care - that it's a massive failure of logical and rational thought, given the amount of times that you invoke it, and I'm not minded to stop pointing this out. When laziness of mind and sloppiness of thought and sheer bad reasoning crop up, rational folk have a duty to point it out, since other people who may be lurking might erroneously think that it's accurate and go and spread the nonsense elsewhere. You can barely seem to post without it; if you're bored of having this pointed out, that's easily sorted - stop doing it. If you are unfamiliar with precisely why it is such a colossal howler - you really should by now as you've been told often enough, so who knows the reason - here are some links for you to read carefully:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof

https://logfall.wordpress.com/negative-proof-fallacy/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

http://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/ignorance.html

There are similar links for the argumentum ad populum/numerum, which you've also employed a couple of times in the past day alone.

There's no cop-out here, nor hiding behind anything - copping-out and hiding are what people do who make assertions and then, when asked, repeatedly and regularly, to substantiate them, don't. A list of yours is easily compiled - it's quite a size by now. You would no doubt say the same of me, but of course, as we all know, when asked to state specifically and precisely which assertions I've made - just like where I've used the NP fallacy at all, let alone more than you as claimed by you almost three months ago; a claim still unsubstantiated of course - you blob it every single time. To add the final neat, really fitting touch, trying to shift the argument back on to me is a good example of yet another fallacy - the tu quoque (q.v. if necessary).

In fact, since the word hide has cropped up, it reminds me that only a day or two ago Outrider rightly observed that most people at least try to cover up their logical fallacies (if they're aware of committing them in the first place, at any rate), whereas you make absolutely no attempt to do so. The only challenge here is why you either don't know that the negative proof fallacy is a fallacy, or don't care, and still keep trotting it out even now as you just have.

Sheer poverty of argumentation, probably.

[jeremyp]

Actually Floo, according to the consultant, there is evidence that it does have more than a placebo effect - and in doing so saves the NHS money in faster recovery times and/or reduced drug usage.

The consultant is wrong. It is no more than placebo. He may be right about the NHS saving money (the placebo effect is real) but I'd like to see where he got his evidence from.

[jeremyp]

So what? Do you think the broad mass of the general public are sufficiently informed on the issue - which involves being able to evaluate scientific evidence - to be able to offer a valid opinion?

Well, since it appears that scierntists haven't been able to come to a conclusive opinion

Yes they have.

It.
Does.
Not.
Work.

[jeremyp]

By the way, a hospital doctor is not a scientist.

[Maeght]

I doubt the consultant has actually done any controlled scientific testing on this and can be just as open to confirmation bias and the like as anyone else. I note he said at one point he 'believed' it worked but didn't provide any stats himself rather quoted other studies.

A criticism that equally applies to the charity who, if you look at their website, are clearly biased towards scientific rationality as the only way forward for humanity - like some here - despite their having no evidence to back this belief up.

Sure, but I was prompted to post by your comment 'The consultant also quoted evidence that his department seem to have gathered - that the use of homeopathic treatments in conjunction with conventional ones speeds up recovery or reduces the usage of conventional drugs.  Do you have evidence that contradicts these findings?' Should have quoted that in my post.

[Enki]

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/11/homeopathy-lack-of-effectiveness-is-no-surprise

So, you're positing evidence that runs counter to the evidence the good consultant posited?  Since both seem to be scientifically gathered, who are we to believe?

And, especially, this article:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_effectiveness_of_homeopathy

Yes, the URL tells you exactly how balanced it is going to be.

Really? Then perhaps you can explain why that particular URL details several detailed meta-studies, including the 1997 study which 'determined a small, apparently positive, effect of homeopathy, although nothing conclusive'. Positive trials are also discussed in the same article. I would have thought that anyone wanting to determine whether homeopathy was effective or not would find it useful to look at the evidence, and especially from meta-studies, such as those done(and updated) from the Cochrane Collaboration, and those published in the Lancet(1997 and 2005).

Now if you had bothered to examine the latest(2015) Australian Report from their National Health and Medical Research Council, (which was mentioned in the second URL), you would have found the following:

It thoroughly reviwed 225 research papers on homeopathy

It analysed 57 systematic reviews(a high-quality type of study that assesses all existing, quality research on a particular topic and synthesises it to make a number of strong, overall findings).

An independent company also reviewed the studies and appraised the evidence to prevent bias.

It concluded that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.

Now let's turn to your Dr. Peter Fisher. Incidentally you referred to him as a Consultant Rheumotologist. Perhaps you should also have mentioned that he is editor of the journal 'Homeopathy' and is a prominent figure in the homeopathic community. After all, if you are going to refer pointedly to one of my URLs as telling 'you exactly how balanced it is going to be', perhaps then you should also mention the evidence that Dr. Fisher, a great supporter of homeopathy,  refers to in the same vein, shouldn't you?

He referred to a study done by the University of Glasgow, you say. Have you got any info on this?... because all I've come up with is this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27460/

which incidentally has a certain Dr David Reilly as one of the case study and testing organisers. Dr Reilly is certainly connected to the University of Glasgow but, as far as I can tell, he is also the head of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital.

As far as I am concerned, the sooner homeopathy is blacklisted from the NHS, the better. Even  the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, is of the view that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos.
 

[Shaker]

By way of some light relief, and on-topic to boot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

[SqueakyVoice]

He may be right about the NHS saving money (the placebo effect is real) but I'd like to see where he got his evidence from.

As it's obvious he just pulled it out his arse are you sure you still want to see..?

[jeremyp]

He may be right about the NHS saving money (the placebo effect is real) but I'd like to see where he got his evidence from.

As it's obvious he just pulled it out his arse are you sure you still want to see..?

Actually, I believe it's homeopathic evidence: the fewer positive trials and studies there are, the more believable the effect.

[Shaker]

Actually, I believe it's homeopathic evidence: the fewer positive trials and studies there are, the more believable the effect.

Oh, very good 

[BashfulAnthony]

Actually Floo, according to the consultant, there is evidence that it does have more than a placebo effect - and in doing so saves the NHS money in faster recovery times and/or reduced drug usage.

The consultant is wrong. It is no more than placebo. He may be right about the NHS saving money (the placebo effect is real) but I'd like to see where he got his evidence from.

Expert in maths, theology, most branches of science;  sports pundit, economist and political analyst:  all that, and now we can add medical expert to the list. Few people are so arrogant and so superior in their attitude.  You are actually a joke!

[Hope]

Because either the medics got it wrong, which certainly happens from time to time, ...

Of course, this is quite possible - after all, it seems to happen on a fairly regular basis.  The problem is that with many of these cases of 'medics getting it wrong', it requires more than one medic to do so all at the same time.  I'm not sure what the statistical probabiity of that is under the NHS (or private medical care), but if this is happening isn't it something that we need to worry about?

... or the body's own healing mechanisms kick in from time to time and a spontaneous cure is the result.

A process that has no scientific evidence to support it, of course, and is therefore your reverting to a form of magic, Floo.

[Hope]

Sure, but I was prompted to post by your comment 'The consultant also quoted evidence that his department seem to have gathered - that the use of homeopathic treatments in conjunction with conventional ones speeds up recovery or reduces the usage of conventional drugs.  Do you have evidence that contradicts these findings?' Should have quoted that in my post.

The problem is that he only referred to those findings.  He didn't say that they were (or weren't) anecdotal, nor did he say that they did or didn't come out of a longitudinal study that his department had carried out (which they could have done).  If I remember correctly, he is based at Bristol Uni.  I'll do a bit of delving.

[Hope]

Really? Then perhaps you can explain why that particular URL details several detailed meta-studies, including the 1997 study which 'determined a small, apparently positive, effect of homeopathy, although nothing conclusive'. Positive trials are also discussed in the same article. I would have thought that anyone wanting to determine whether homeopathy was effective or not would find it useful to look at the evidence, and especially from meta-studies, such as those done(and updated) from the Cochrane Collaboration, and those published in the Lancet(1997 and 2005).

Sorry, enki, but an organisation/author can reference any number of posiive and negative reports and studies, yet still be biased one way or the other.  Having read a number of rationalwiki articles over the years, I tend to take any conclusion that is come to there with a pinch of salt since it's raison d'etre is always to come down on the so-called 'rational' side of any argument

Now if you had bothered to examine the latest(2015) Australian Report from their National Health and Medical Research Council, (which was mentioned in the second URL), you would have found the following:

I didn't bother with that URL once I'd actually opened it since it had already been summarised by 2 of the GTS speakers on yesterday's programme referred to in the OP.  Interestingly enough, in almost identical words to those you have used,

Now let's turn to your Dr. Peter Fisher. Incidentally you referred to him as a Consultant Rheumotologist. Perhaps you should also have mentioned that he is editor of the journal 'Homeopathy' and is a prominent figure in the homeopathic community. After all, if you are going to refer pointedly to one of my URLs as telling 'you exactly how balanced it is going to be', perhaps then you should also mention the evidence that Dr. Fisher, a great supporter of homeopathy,  refers to in the same vein, shouldn't you?

OK, that is my fault - I went by the info. the BBC gave us during his input.

As far as I am concerned, the sooner homeopathy is blacklisted from the NHS, the better. Even  the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, is of the view that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos.

OK, let's say the annual NHS homeopathy bill is £4million (I seem to remember that figure being bandied about) and the saving to the NHS is - say - £5 million; is it good economic practice to ditch that kind of savings benefit?

[Ricky Spanish]

Give it up Shaker, it's a Hope less case of a belief in something that doesn't actual have any effect on what it claims to heal.

Also, is it just a coincidence that Hopeless keeps citing Peter, the Fisher of men as his go-to guy?

[Maeght]

Sure, but I was prompted to post by your comment 'The consultant also quoted evidence that his department seem to have gathered - that the use of homeopathic treatments in conjunction with conventional ones speeds up recovery or reduces the usage of conventional drugs.  Do you have evidence that contradicts these findings?' Should have quoted that in my post.

The problem is that he only referred to those findings.  He didn't say that they were (or weren't) anecdotal, nor did he say that they did or didn't come out of a longitudinal study that his department had carried out (which they could have done).  If I remember correctly, he is based at Bristol Uni.  I'll do a bit of delving.

Looking him up he is Clinical Director and Director of Research at the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine and has done research and produced papers, being a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and of the Faculty of Homeopathy. It was strange that this wasn't made clear on the program and he seemed to be being presented as a rheumatologist who had tried homeopathy and thought it worked.

[Enki]

Hope,

From your Mess.44:

OK, let's say the annual NHS homeopathy bill is £4million (I seem to remember that figure being bandied about) and the saving to the NHS is - say - £5 million; is it good economic practice to ditch that kind of savings benefit?

Actually on that particular point, Hope, I would want to know what evidence there is that homeopathy via the NHS saves money. However I'm assuming that you also realise that placebos are administered within the NHS regularly without any recourse to homeopathy at all. One survey in 2013, for instance, suggested that 97% of GPs have prescribed placebos to at least one of their patients.

What I am challenging is why homeopathy should benefit(financially and in reputation) from its NHS association when the overwhelming evidence is that it is only a placebo effect, and, if this is so, then much cheaper placebo benefits are accessible, and, indeed, regularly used.

[jeremyp]

Actually Floo, according to the consultant, there is evidence that it does have more than a placebo effect - and in doing so saves the NHS money in faster recovery times and/or reduced drug usage.

The consultant is wrong. It is no more than placebo. He may be right about the NHS saving money (the placebo effect is real) but I'd like to see where he got his evidence from.

Expert in maths, theology, most branches of science;  sports pundit, economist and political analyst:  all that, and now we can add medical expert to the list. Few people are so arrogant and so superior in their attitude.  You are actually a joke!

So here it is. Apparently it is wrong for anybody except an medical expert to ask for evidence.

Why don't you concentrate on fixing your own shortcomings instead of sneering at other people.

[jeremyp]

... or the body's own healing mechanisms kick in from time to time and a spontaneous cure is the result.

A process that has no scientific evidence to support it, of course, and is therefore your reverting to a form of magic, Floo.

You are trying to claim that there is no scientific evidence that the human body has self healing mechanisms? Is that meant to be a joke or is it just profoundly stupid?

Have you ever had a cold and not treated it? Does it go away by itself in the end? Have you ever cut yourself and not treated it? Does the injury scab over and fi itself in the end?