![[challenge entry]](/images/board_posticon_c.gif "Challenge Entry: Making Hospitals Dangerous"){kind=small}
I knew that sugar pill degree wasn't worth much
All of that lovely 3Diness, just to bring home that true, awfulness of the situation.
The really bad thing is that despite the authorities having caught up with them, they are still saying that it works.
From the Making Hospitals Dangerous challenge. See all 239 entries (closed)
(, Fri 26 Feb 2010, 15:03, archived)
YeahThe trouble is that it panders to people's prejudices about nasty drug companies.
I saw an article on the Daily Fail website when this kicked off a couple of weeks ago and the comments were horrifying.
People who poo poo'd homeopathy were shot down in flames and often accused of being in the pay of drug companies. Similar to the MMR bullshit that went around a few years ago.
It seems the people who make pots of money from homeopathy have louder voices than drug companies these days.
(I saw an article on the Daily Fail website when this kicked off a couple of weeks ago and the comments were horrifying.
People who poo poo'd homeopathy were shot down in flames and often accused of being in the pay of drug companies. Similar to the MMR bullshit that went around a few years ago.
It seems the people who make pots of money from homeopathy have louder voices than drug companies these days.
Flowerpot No longer has the vapours thanks to DTH,
Fri 26 Feb 2010, 15:27,
archived)
And the people who try proper scientific research get shot down too...Remember the Randi/Benveniste incident? Homoeopathy may well have nothing in it, but it deserved a chance, like any hypothesis, to prove itself. And if it fails proper research, then it fails.
(
Tribs 🦇 ↓ dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥʇ ↓🦇,
Fri 26 Feb 2010, 15:30,
archived)
was that the caseWhere it turned out they'd failed to do double blind testing, and had skewed the results?
The one were Randi taped the list of samples/placebos to the ceiling in a sealed envelope, and when they didn't know what they were testing, the results fell apart?
(The one were Randi taped the list of samples/placebos to the ceiling in a sealed envelope, and when they didn't know what they were testing, the results fell apart?
Halibut If you think education is expensive, try crack.,
Fri 26 Feb 2010, 15:38,
archived)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste#Nature_publication_and_investigation
Nature's attitude sucked - they went in there with the intent to debunk, not investigate impartially. Randi isn't a scientist - he's a magician.
(Nature's attitude sucked - they went in there with the intent to debunk, not investigate impartially. Randi isn't a scientist - he's a magician.
Tribs 🦇 ↓ dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥʇ ↓🦇,
Fri 26 Feb 2010, 16:00,
archived)
There doesn't seem to have been any method opimisation.If I remember right, the container with the liquid init has to be tapped three times with something special (a piece of mummified melton mowbrey pork pie wrapped in a turkish wrestler's jock strap) and only then does it have the magical properties.
I think that they should also provide the double blind test results from a statistically significant test of groups of people who have received the product of 'four-tap' technology as well, or maybe that is over egging it - perhaps two taps would be enough.
Another problem is the purity of the alcohol.
As I understand it, the idea is that you find something that causes symptoms that are similar and then dilute that down to nonexistence and you have your homeopathic cure. One of the main impurities in alcohol is acetaldehyde (ethanal - it is always in there, no matter how pure you make it - let air in there and you get acetaldehyde) which is one of the chemicals that gives you a hangover. Surely, that would obliterate the 'medicinal footprint' of the chemical that is supposed to have one (such as strychnine or whatever). So, you always have a cure for a hangover, whether it was originally for diabetes, cancer or death.
(,
Fri 26 Feb 2010, 16:53,
archived)
I think that they should also provide the double blind test results from a statistically significant test of groups of people who have received the product of 'four-tap' technology as well, or maybe that is over egging it - perhaps two taps would be enough.
Another problem is the purity of the alcohol.
As I understand it, the idea is that you find something that causes symptoms that are similar and then dilute that down to nonexistence and you have your homeopathic cure. One of the main impurities in alcohol is acetaldehyde (ethanal - it is always in there, no matter how pure you make it - let air in there and you get acetaldehyde) which is one of the chemicals that gives you a hangover. Surely, that would obliterate the 'medicinal footprint' of the chemical that is supposed to have one (such as strychnine or whatever). So, you always have a cure for a hangover, whether it was originally for diabetes, cancer or death.
The BBC's morning news programhad a 'balanced' pair of people on - one was the pro-homeopathy person (a) and the other was someone who understood drugs trials (b).
It ended up with the female interviewer saying that there was obviously still some uncertainty (or something like that) about the issue. Person 'b' stated that there was no uncertainty about it, pointing out the meta-data analysis results which puts all of the trials together and looks at the outcome. The meta-data shows that there is no detectable effect other than the placebo effect.
I think that for all of the genuinely no-hope patients (those that have tried everything and found that nothing at all really works) and still want a pill to take, people should give them sugar pills and tell them that it is a proper drug.
That way, the patient will have lost nothing (they have already given all we have to offer a fair chance) and by bypassing the homeopathist and their expensive pseudo-drugs, we can give the patient what they would have got from the homeopathist but without paying the homeopathy sugar pill factory for it.
Maybe Trebor or Foxes could get the contract for it.
(,
Fri 26 Feb 2010, 15:38,
archived)
It ended up with the female interviewer saying that there was obviously still some uncertainty (or something like that) about the issue. Person 'b' stated that there was no uncertainty about it, pointing out the meta-data analysis results which puts all of the trials together and looks at the outcome. The meta-data shows that there is no detectable effect other than the placebo effect.
I think that for all of the genuinely no-hope patients (those that have tried everything and found that nothing at all really works) and still want a pill to take, people should give them sugar pills and tell them that it is a proper drug.
That way, the patient will have lost nothing (they have already given all we have to offer a fair chance) and by bypassing the homeopathist and their expensive pseudo-drugs, we can give the patient what they would have got from the homeopathist but without paying the homeopathy sugar pill factory for it.
Maybe Trebor or Foxes could get the contract for it.
Damned good idea"I'm going to put you on a course of forfuxsake. Take three times a day, and see if you feel better"
( Halibut If you think education is expensive, try crack.,
Fri 26 Feb 2010, 15:41,
archived)
