Boy flees Mexico to avoid chemo due in part to religious beliefs.

[Anto Kennedy]

Only a fool is at odds with the conclusions of scientists.

That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The irony is epic.

Anyway, recent research has been carried out at Queen's University, Belfast (just a half mile away from my home), by Madeleine Ennis.

Brown, VG; Ennis, M. (2001). "Flow-cytometric analysis of basophil activation: inhibition by histamine at convential and homeopathic concentrations". Inflammation Research (50): 47–48.

Belon, M.; Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Sainte-Laudy J, Roberfroid M, Wiegant FAC. (1999). "Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a european multi-centre trial". Inflammation Research 48 (48): s17-s18.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/e5kt2v0fjrwy65kh/

MADELEINE Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen’s University, Belfast, was the scourge of homeopathy. She railed against its claims that a chemical remedy could be diluted to the point where a sample was unlikely to contain a single molecule of anything but water, and yet still have a healing effect. Until, that is, she set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy was bunkum.

In her most recent paper, Ennis describes how her team looked at the effects of ultra-dilute solutions of histamine on human white blood cells involved in inflammation. These “basophils” release histamine when the cells are under attack. Once released, the histamine stops them releasing any more. The study, replicated in four different labs, found that homeopathic solutions – so dilute that they probably didn’t contain a single histamine molecule – worked just like histamine. Ennis might not be happy with the homeopaths’ claims, but she admits that an effect cannot be ruled out.

So how could it happen? Homeopaths prepare their remedies by dissolving things like charcoal, deadly nightshade or spider venom in ethanol, and then diluting this “mother tincture” in water again and again. No matter what the level of dilution, homeopaths claim, the original remedy leaves some kind of imprint on the water molecules. Thus, however dilute the solution becomes, it is still imbued with the properties of the remedy.

You can understand why Ennis remains sceptical. And it remains true that no homeopathic remedy has ever been shown to work in a large randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial. But the Belfast study (Inflammation Research, vol 53, p 181) suggests that something is going on. “We are,” Ennis says in her paper, “unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon.” If the results turn out to be real, she says, the implications are profound: we may have to rewrite physics and chemistry.

http://goodscience.wordpress.com/2009/06...-on-there/

And then there's the placebo effect which has been shown to be a real phenomena.

Still, I'd take the chemo any day of the week. But that's just my own preference.

[Tiberius]

Only a fool is at odds with the conclusions of scientists.

That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The irony is epic.

Only stupid to people like yourself I presume. Science is the best method we have for determining what is true, because when done correctly it not just gives results, but predicts them as well.

Anyway, recent research has been carried out at Queen's University, Belfast (just a half mile away from my home), by Madeleine Ennis.

A team of researchers have been unable to recreate her results: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/200...athy.shtml

Whether she still believes her experiment or not, it is the opinion of one scientist versus the opinions of the rest of them. As soon as she is able to come up with a test that eliminates bias and is able to reproduce results when other scientists do it, she will take the scientific community by storm. Until then, there is no evidence whatsoever that supports the homeopathic hypothesis that "water has memory", nor why this memory only remembers certain things, nor why when you dilute something it gets stronger. Homeopathy is not science until it can explain itself.

And then there's the placebo effect which has been shown to be a real phenomena.

I never argued that the placebo effect didn't exist. I don't see why you brought it up in the same post as one where you gave a lousy example of a scientist who "proved" homeopathy. The placebo effect does more damage to homeopathy than James Randi has ever done in debunking it.

[Pippy]

Hey,

Homeopathy is not science until it can explain itself.

What does that mean? Why isn't homeopathy a science? Who does it have to explain itself too? I understand it, is it a science to me?

To call it the opinion of one lonely scientist versus the rest of them is disingenuous. I doubt every scientist in the world disagrees with Ms. Ennis. And scientists are not gods, not even to atheists. I don't hold these fantastic scientists views to be better than mine because of the magical lab coat. Scientists by nature are flawed because they are always trying to control things.

I never argued that the placebo effect didn't exist. I don't see why you brought it up in the same post as one where you gave a lousy example of a scientist who "proved" homeopathy. The placebo effect does more damage to homeopathy than James Randi has ever done in debunking it.

Again, please explain what this means. How and when did Randi 'debunk' homeopathy? I saw him debunk a lot of pseudo-science, but not homeopathy. Unless you think of empirical medicine as supernatural. How does the placebo effect damage the case for homeopathy? I always thought it helped prove it, that if someone thinks they will get better, they usually do. Before medicine and invasive treatment it seems we can just heal ourselves. From certain things, and in certain cases. I would like to hear how you think the placebo effect discredits homeopathic medicine.

Obviously it is somewhere we strongly disagree. I am not at all fond of the medicinal system where we treat symptoms instead of causes, and in doing so create more systems to treat. Homeopathy, to me, is valid, empirical and much more healthy. I mean compare SSRI (school shooting/self shooting) pills with meditation and personal growth in an attempt to learn why you act in such a way as to need SSRI's. I went that route, quit ALL psychoactive medicine and just dealt with the problems. I feel much better than I did on government drugs. My first experience with drugs was at the insistence of my controllers. I had to take speed, oh I mean Ritalin™ or I would be kicked out of school. In retrospect I should have taken the out, school was a bad idea. Treat the actual problem.

I am interested in what you think, but I know you don't like to discuss or give the benefit of the doubt. So I am inviting you to tear into me like I am an idiot, and not answer my honest questions.
Thank you,
-Pip

[Tiberius]

What does that mean? Why isn't homeopathy a science? Who does it have to explain itself too? I understand it, is it a science to me?

It means that homeopathy has to have a verifiable scientific theory to how and why it works. It must have evidence to support the theory, and it must provide predictions to the results of experiments. To be accepted as a science, it must follow the rigorous procedures of the scientific method. If it does this and passes, it will be classified as science. So far, it has not done so, either through refusal to do so by those who practice it, or by people admitting they have no idea how to test it. The people who do come up with tests have all failed, or have had tests that succeed but then fail later when all bias is removed.

To call it the opinion of one lonely scientist versus the rest of them is disingenuous. I doubt every scientist in the world disagrees with Ms. Ennis. And scientists are not gods, not even to atheists. I don't hold these fantastic scientists views to be better than mine because of the magical lab coat. Scientists by nature are flawed because they are always trying to control things.

Majority opinion of credited scientists wins in this situation. The majority of scientists who actually know what they are doing (have relevant studies in the relevant fields, etc) have done the experiments and have proved nothing. The current accepted explanation is the placebo effect.

Again, please explain what this means. How and when did Randi 'debunk' homeopathy? I saw him debunk a lot of pseudo-science, but not homeopathy. Unless you think of empirical medicine as supernatural. How does the placebo effect damage the case for homeopathy? I always thought it helped prove it, that if someone thinks they will get better, they usually do. Before medicine and invasive treatment it seems we can just heal ourselves. From certain things, and in certain cases. I would like to hear how you think the placebo effect discredits homeopathic medicine.

Randi debunking homeopathy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/200...athy.shtml

The placebo effect damages the case for homeopathy because homeopathic medicine is presented as an alternative medicine, and not a placebo. Homeopathic doctors claim that water has memory, and that diluting things makes them stronger. No test has ever confirmed this. All the tests show that homeopathic remedies have no better success rate than placebos in multiple studies. This points to the very likely conclusion that homeopathy is nothing more than a placebo, and so you are probably better off (both for the sake of your health and your wallet) taking actual medicine...

Obviously it is somewhere we strongly disagree. I am not at all fond of the medicinal system where we treat symptoms instead of causes, and in doing so create more systems to treat.

Erm, we treat the symptoms because they point towards a cause. How on earth would you treat someone if you didn't look at the symtoms? You do realise that homeopathy also "treats" the symptoms right? One of the arguments why homeopathy has a placebo effect is that the doctors spend so much more time talking to the patients, getting to know them, etc. The patient feels like the doctor knows what he/she is doing, and they end up feeling better (and getting better due to the placebo effect).

Homeopathy, to me, is valid, empirical and much more healthy.

Please explain how it is empirical? It is more healthy in the sense that instead of drugs, you get water-coated sugar-pills, but the drugs are designed to actually fix the problem, whilst homeopathic remedies have never been proved to do anything active.

I mean compare SSRI (school shooting/self shooting) pills with meditation and personal growth in an attempt to learn why you act in such a way as to need SSRI's. I went that route, quit ALL psychoactive medicine and just dealt with the problems. I feel much better than I did on government drugs. My first experience with drugs was at the insistence of my controllers. I had to take speed, oh I mean Ritalin™ or I would be kicked out of school. In retrospect I should have taken the out, school was a bad idea. Treat the actual problem.

Drugs are designed to cure. Meditation only gives you the placebo effect. I'd likle to see you meditate your way out of a flu pandemic though. At the end of the day, how can you trust things that have no empirical proof? They might make you feel better, but there is a difference between feeling better and actually getting better. I think you simply mistrust doctors.

I am interested in what you think, but I know you don't like to discuss or give the benefit of the doubt. So I am inviting you to tear into me like I am an idiot, and not answer my honest questions.

Well hopefully I haven't been mean in my responses here.

[Anto Kennedy]

[quote='Tiberius' pid='21040' dateline='1245890229']
Only a fool is at odds with the conclusions of scientists.

That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The irony is epic.

Only stupid to people like yourself I presume. Science is the best method we have for determining what is true, because when done correctly it not just gives results, but predicts them as well.

You didn't have to call me stupid, that's rude. As an admin you should lead by example.

Besides, if you don't challenge the conlusions of a scientist, such as Ms. Ennis, it goes against everything science stands for (you know the part about peer review). Maybe that's just me; a stupid, irrational, unwashed barbarian.

---

I never argued that the placebo effect didn't exist. I don't see why you brought it up in the same post as one where you gave a lousy example of a scientist who "proved" homeopathy.

I brought it up because it's relevant. That's what you do in discussions, bring relative information to the table to be discussed.

And I never said that study proved homeopathy, find a single word in my post which could lead you to believe so.

I don't even believe in homeopathy. I copied and pasted most of my post, but you're so paranoid you read too much into my intentions, as if I was secretly conspiring to unravel the fabric of you're rational universe by copying and pasting a third party article.

It's not a lousy example, it's the first major study into the effects of homeopathy and certainly deserves a mention in any discussion concerning homeopathy. Stop trying to kill discussion, it's you're job as administrator to make this forum a welcoming, friendly place for people to discuss on-topic issues.

You embarrased yourself by calling me, and "people like me" stupid. (what people does that refer to by the way?)

Grow up, wise up, there's no reason to get so wound up in an online forum.

And please stop tarring me with a prepackaged theist brush. I honestly don't have an agenda, I don't take things anywhere near seriously enough to have one. So when I post an article, I'm just posting an article, with no subtext or hidden intent whatsoever. (and if I did, you're hardly going to be able to be aware of it, unless you've got some sort of ESP that no one else knows about.)

Well, enjoy you're day, unwind, and stop watching porno, that has been proven to increase aggression.

[Tiberius]

You didn't have to call me stupid, that's rude. As an admin you should lead by example.

I didn't call you stupid, I responded to your assertion that my point was "the stupidest thing I've ever heard" by saying it was "only stupid to people like you". Both times the word "stupid" was in reference to my point.

Besides, if you don't challenge the conlusions of a scientist, such as Ms. Ennis, it goes against everything science stands for (you know the part about peer review). Maybe that's just me; a stupid, irrational, unwashed barbarian.

Indeed, but then again one scientist (or even a few of them) doesn't constitute the majority opinion. When most scientists agree on something, it is elevated to the status of theory; otherwise, there is still research needed. However you used the example of one scientist to back up your point about homeopathy actually working, even though the scientist's work had been discredited. That isn't how science should work.

I brought it up because it's relevant. That's what you do in discussions, bring relative information to the table to be discussed.

Well it came across to me as if you thought I doubted the placebo effect. My apologies if that was not intended.

And I never said that study proved homeopathy, find a single word in my post which could lead you to believe so.

I don't even believe in homeopathy. I copied and pasted most of my post, but you're so paranoid you read too much into my intentions, as if I was secretly conspiring to unravel the fabric of you're rational universe by copying and pasting a third party article.

Erm...WTF? So you try to rebut my point about trusting the opinions of scientists (plural) by pointing to a failed study of homeopathy (without mentioning it failed) where a scientist claimed to have given evidence for a mechanism by which homeopathy might work? How on earth was I not meant to get from that that you think that most scientists get it wrong, and how this lone scientist is seemingly more trustworthy.

It's not a lousy example, it's the first major study into the effects of homeopathy and certainly deserves a mention in any discussion concerning homeopathy. Stop trying to kill discussion, it's you're job as administrator to make this forum a welcoming, friendly place for people to discuss on-topic issues.

It is a lousy example...since it's been discredited by science. You are the one trying to kill discussion, but telling me to stop having an opinion on things. I've never once told you to stop talking about this; I may have asked for your reasons, but I've never told you explicitly to stop. You are the one who apparently thinks that people aren't allowed to disagree with you in a discussion.

You embarrased yourself by calling me, and "people like me" stupid. (what people does that refer to by the way?)

Again, "stupid" wasn't in reference to you, but to the point. If you are going to interpret it another way, then I'll just interpret your original point "That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard" as if you were calling me stupid.

Grow up, wise up, there's no reason to get so wound up in an online forum.

Says the guy who has just ranted about the word "stupid" without even thinking to go back and make sure he had it in context?

And please stop tarring me with a prepackaged theist brush. I honestly don't have an agenda, I don't take things anywhere near seriously enough to have one. So when I post an article, I'm just posting an article, with no subtext or hidden intent whatsoever. (and if I did, you're hardly going to be able to be aware of it, unless you've got some sort of ESP that no one else knows about.)

I still don't get why you posted an article about a discredited scientist's work when trying to show that trusting scientists was a "stupid" statement. It only backed up my original assertion. Only through science and peer-review did we expose this one scientist's work as false. We should trust scientists; when they work as a team, they get to the correct answer.

[Anto Kennedy]

fuck me

wall of text

[Tiberius]

Same could have been said for your previous post

[Anto Kennedy]

i admit i got my ass handed to me, i need to step up me game. haven't been taking this seriously enough.