Homeopathy and Plausibility (Er, Homeopathy Shouldn't Work, And It Doesn't Work)

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/homeopathy-and-plausibility/

"...


A thorough basic and clinical science analysis of a medical claim can be summarized by the term “plausibility,” or “prior probability” if you want to put it into statistical terms. When we say a certain belief is plausible we mean it is consistent with what we know from the rest of science. In other words, because of the many weaknesses of clinical evidence, in order for a therapy to be generally accepted as part of SBM it should have a certain minimal supporting clinical evidence and overall scientific plausibility.

These can exist in different proportions – for example one therapy may be highly plausible (it would be shocking if it were not true) and have modest supporting clinical evidence, while another may have unknown plausibility but with solid clinical evidence of efficacy. But no therapy should have clinical evidence that suggests lack of efficacy, nor extreme implausibility (not just an unknown mechanism, but no possible mechanism).

The poster child for extreme scientific implausibility within medicine is, arguable, homeopathy. Its “law of similars” is little more than sympathetic magic, and its “law of infinitessimals” leads to concoctions diluted to the point that they have zero active ingredient and only the magical memory left behind. It is this reality which inspired a recent review to characterize homeopathy as “witchcraft.”

...

If we consider the SBM criteria above, we can summarize homeopathy by saying it has extreme implausibility and the clinical evidence shows lack of efficacy. It should not work, and it does not work. There is no legitimate controversy about this. The only think keeping homeopathy alive are delusional proponents and a public (including many regulators) who do not know what homeopathy truly is.

..."


---------------------------------


Mildly interesting.

:hi:

[stockholmer]

1. I'm not into homeopathy, but ScienceBasedMedicine.com is a big Pharma/HFCS shill site

High Fructose Corn Syrup: Tasty Toxin or Slandered Sweetener?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

snip

Still, none of this alters the fact that a diet high in fructose has been shown to cause — or at least contribute to — hyperlipidemia, obesity, insulin resistance and cardiac disease. However, those who have been paying attention will have noticed that HFCS is not the ONLY sweetener that contains significant amounts of fructose.

snip

For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake.

Finally, the best nutritional advice is to eat everything in moderation — and that includes sweets. While a diet high in fructose may increase your risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease — maybe — a fructose-free diet is not guaranteed to prevent those diseases. Eat a variety of foods, including a small amount of sweets, get enough exercise, watch your (and your children’s) weight and see your doctor for regular health check-ups.

And stop worrying that HFCS is poisoning you and your children.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, HFCS's safe? NOT!!!


Cancer cells slurp up fructose, US study finds

http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802

Study shows fructose used differently from glucose

* Findings challenge common wisdom about sugars

WASHINGTON Aug 2 (Reuters) – Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.

Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.

They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aolnews.com/article/new-studies-fan-flames-of-corn-syrup-debate/19412768

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/dining/21sugar.html?_r=1;


High fructose corn syrup the cause of obesity epidemic, new study suggests


http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Nutrition/Food/high_fructose_corn_syrup_the_cause_of_obesity_epidemic_250310081.html


High Fructose Corn Syrup Linked to Liver Scarring, Research Suggests

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322204628.htm



Princeton University study notes that HFCS DOES have different metabolic properties because the Fructose in HFCS is “free and unbound” unlike sugar’s binding with glucose and therefore is immediately ingested.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/



Half of the US will have or well on the way to having diabetes by 2020, in 1960, it was less than 5%

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/23/us-unitedhealth-diabetes-idUSTRE6AM0NH20101123


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The explosion in cancer and other diseases caused by the corporate-induced diet. Meanwhile Big Pharma, the for-profit medical industry, and the Big Agra laughs all the way to the bank. They make you sick through diet and lifestyle, then financially rape you to treat it.

Sites like ScienceBasedMedicine.com are collaborators/shills in this. In this case it is a coporatist elite using manipultion to encourge group think, stigmatization of dissent, and use of their horrid product.

The same tactics were used to sell such disparate things as the WMD lies that drove the USA into Iraq, as well as eugenics from the 1890′s to the 1930′s which led to the forced sterilization of millions thruout the USA, Europe, and other parts of the world.

For a seminal treatment on advertising, mass psychology, and social conditioning see Edward Bernays' (he was Sigmund Freud’s nephew) 1928 book “Propoganda”. Bernays was the father of the PR (Public Relations) industry, and foundational to the modern advert industry. Orwell cited Propoganda as a major source of inspiration for his dystopian classic '1984'.

[FLAprogressive]

2. That has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of the article or this posting.

[stockholmer]

4. on DU, the source site's credibilty is always fair game

:thumbsup:

[HuckleB]

8. It is.

And Science Based Medicine is one of the most credible sites around.

Nice try.

[stockholmer]

13. nice try glossing over their HFCS shilling

[HuckleB]

15. In other words, you don't understand how science works.

You choose selective studies that have not been repeated, and at least one of them has many problems. You ignore so much else, it's not even funny.

You clearly have an agenda, and it's not an ethical one.

About Science Based Medicine: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/about-science-based-medicine/

[HuckleB]

10. Well, you wouldn't someone to have to deal with actual content, would you?

Come on, now! Homeopathy works because I say so! SBM is a Big Pharma Shill because I say so!

I say so seems to be the only thing the sCAM pushers can offer.

[HuckleB]

6. No, it's not.

It actually criticizes big pharma, and just about everything else. Lying about a source is not going to help your cause. BTW, the articles you push to refer to SBM as a "Big Pharma" supporter have nothing to do with Big Pharma. Further, citing single studies out of context is meaningless. That is where SBM goes beyond most others, and that is why it is such a valuable site. Pay attention to the world a little bit. You might be surprised at what you see.

Of course, plausibility is not something you want to discuss, so you offer up selective nonsense as a response.

Homeopathy is no different that faith healing. Cut the crap.

[BuddhaGirl]

17. +1

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KT2000]

3. No blood pressure

medication I have taken (and I have taken lots) has ever worked.
I am now seeing ads for people who are not helped by antidepressants - more antidepressants.

If you are not comfortable with homeopathy, do not use it please.

[FLAprogressive]

5. There's nothing in it. It is no more effective than a placebo.

[HuckleB]

9. It is a placebo, at best.

[HuckleB]

7. If you are comfortable with pointless scams, please work to make ALL of them legal!

Thanks.

And you supposed anecdotes are as meaningless as your faith healing belief in homeopathy. (I do love the fact that you're posting something based on some ad you've seen on TV, btw. That is funny.)

[KT2000]

11. I have a question

you often post about homeopathy and then get into disputes. Why do you do that? Why have you chosen to go to war on such a thing - especially on a this site? Are you a person who is paid to promote certain points of view on web sites?

[stockholmer]

14. +1

[HuckleB]

16. Wow!

That is quite the bizarre personal attack.

I post about lots of things on the health forum, and I look to science. If you actually paid attention to that, you would know better than to make such an attack.

Further, I despise scams. Is there something wrong with that?

Now, are you going to defend homeopathy with actual science? Of course not. The science shows that there is nothing in it. If that's the case, then why is it legal for BIG HOMEOPATHY to make baseless claims about their products?

Now, let's see what you try say about Ben Goldacre:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2

[FLAprogressive]

21. THE GUARDIAN IS CLEARLY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY BIG PHARMA

[FLAprogressive]

12. But why are you paid by big pharma? I'm going to ignore everything you said and focus on a

red herring and faulty assumption because my cognitive dissonance is really getting to me.

[HuckleB]

19. Can you help me get my paycheck?

I'm still waiting for the first one.

[FLAprogressive]

20. Damn Big Pharma....screwing their "paid operatives" out of paychecks. LOL