View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 1st, 2014, 2:38 pm



Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Another conversation with Nancy Malik 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15370
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
We have been far kinder to her.....: Thank you very much. What more I can expect from you?
Do you want me to dig out links to Skeptic forums where you have been given short shrift and called all manner of things?

Quote:
Nancy abused our goodwill............: Guilty person accusing the innocent
Guilty of what? You are abusing our hospitality by not engaging in even a half-decent discussion.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 2:58 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2009, 12:04 am
Posts: 239
Maria wrote:
WARNING: Later today I will temporarily lock this thread for editing. Some posts will be split off to one or more new threads. In the meantime, I suggest everyone makes sure they have a copy of any post they wish to make before clicking the submit button, just in case it gets lost.
I was about to suggest something like this. For a field where it is believed that "less is more", our two homeopathy believers sure do believe in overdosing the verbiage. I really don't have time to read it any more.

_________________
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.


December 17th, 2009, 3:03 pm
Profile
Banned
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2008, 11:38 am
Posts: 212
Location: Gurgaon, India
Nirvanam wrote:
And please don't go on about this placebo thing. Do you know what placebo effect is? Placebo effect, if you strip all the terminology used, is nothing but a scientist/expert saying "I don't know how it happened". That's all. Placebo effect does not explain anything. It is a term coined to identify a case as one where we don't know what happened. Nothing more nothing less.

Dismissing things off as placebo effect neither provides scientific ground for dismissal nor does it mean that something is not what it is claimed to be. It only means that right now I don't know how it happened. It is a maintenance of status quo not a dismissal...that's a huge difference.


Homeopathic ‘placebo’: much more effective than conventional medicine’s placebo

Allen Roses, of GSK told a scientific meeting in London that the "vast majority of drugs only work in 30 or 50% of people." It was reported on the front page of the Independent newspaper on 8 December .
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;327/7428/1366

BMJ Clinical Evidence says only somewhere between 26-34% of 2,500 commonly used treatments have some proven benefit. The Bristol study [Bristol Homeopathic Hospital] concluded 70%+ of patients reported some improvement with homeopathic treatment. The Berlin study came up with similar percentages and concluded that patients using homeopathy had better outcomes than patients using conventional medicine. Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital’s ongoing audits of patient response return similar percentages.

It’s worth emphasising that while controls might be absent in these studies, the patient cohorts tend to have a high percentage (80%+) of chronic complaints of which an equally high percentage (80%+) have failed to respond to conventional treatment. If they failed to respond to conventional treatment, in which the placebo effect is likely to be considerably stronger than in homeopathy, then it’s reasonable to suggest that these are patients who are not particularly susceptible to placebo response. If they failed to respond to conventional treatment, then it’s reasonable to suggest that for these patients, homeopathy proved to be the more effective option.”

SOURCE: http://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com

Not only homeopathy, acupuncture placebo is much more effective than conventional medicine

in a German randomised controlled back-pain study, acupuncture 'placebo' was shown to be nearly twice as effective as the best conventional medicine has to offer. So, according to the principles of EBM as currently practiced, conventional medicine is less effective than an acupuncture placebo.

Reference: Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery

_________________
Real (Homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional conventional Medicine (CAM) fails


December 17th, 2009, 4:58 pm
Profile
Banned
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2008, 11:38 am
Posts: 212
Location: Gurgaon, India
Alan H wrote:
Nancy came on here and asserted that homeopathy worked. We did not ask her to come here. But having done so, it is incumbent on her to answer the criticism made of her assertions.


Totally false. The thread is started by madam maria ( and contributed by others) ridiculing homeopathy and calling it nonsense, , it does not work, etc for the next 150 posts. My first post is around 152 challenging everyone. I know skeptics likes to challenge and do not liked to be challenged.

We do not ask to come here: Again showing superiority complex.

_________________
Real (Homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional conventional Medicine (CAM) fails


December 17th, 2009, 5:10 pm
Profile
Banned
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2008, 11:38 am
Posts: 212
Location: Gurgaon, India
Alan H wrote:

If you want to go down this route, choose one of the 'laws' of homeopathy, explain it and explain why it is true.



Homeopathy is non-toxic system of medical science originated in Germany by Dr. Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) (the founder and father of homeopathy). He was M.D. in conventional medicine. He realised his own school of medicine (conventional) was not helping the patients and spent years researching on homeopathy. The term “homoeopathy” was coined in 1807.

The basic fundamental principles of Homeopathy are: -

1. Law of similars/Like cures like (1796): Disease can be cured by a medicinal substance given in micro doses that produces similar symptoms in health people when given in large doses.
http://www.jorhodeshomeopathy.co.uk/jo- ... -like.html

2. Law of minimum dose (1801): Since the homoeopathic medicines act at a dynamic level, only a minute quantity of the medicine is administered which is enough/sufficient to stimulate the dynamically deranged vital force/innate healing powers to bring about the necessary curative change in a patient, not more that that, that means no overdosing. Infinitesimally small dose of potentised medicine.
Potentising the medicine increases it collative medicinal powers through dynamisation (serial dilution and succussion/trituration) and avoids unwanted side-effects.

3. Law of simplex (1810): At any given time, only one remedy can be the exact similar to the presenting disease condition of the patient. So a single remedy (one remedy at a time) is given based upon their constitution/totality of the symptoms which includes physical, mental, and emotional aspects/symptoms. This results in individualization i.e. it may require different medicine for different people suffering from same disease

4. Hering law of direction of cure (1845): Cure progresses from above downwards, from within outwards, from more important organ to less important one, in reverse order of coming of the symptoms

_________________
Real (Homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional conventional Medicine (CAM) fails


December 17th, 2009, 5:32 pm
Profile
Banned
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2008, 11:38 am
Posts: 212
Location: Gurgaon, India
Nirvanam wrote:
Alan H wrote:
We've already told you why we reject anecdote, Nancy.
Alan, this is the attitude I am referring to. The "we", "we want this", "we want that", "we expect this", "we expect that". Please understand that this is a web forum where people are sharing opinions. I am talking from what I experience here. I see people asking for evidence and rubbishing everything that is provided as if they are some sorta panel to rule on something. We should ask each other for stuff, and agree to disagree. If we think we are some kinda great panel to judge something then we should have the requisite expertise, no?

Folks,

What are we? Lets know this, what exactly is each individual's recognized expertise in this forum? How many scientists do we have here? I know I am not one. I also know one of the areas of expertise of Paolo is Biology, Nick is Economics, mine is in Business Process Improvement/Re-engineering. What about yours?

Who really are we to dismiss someone off for what they believe in when we ourselves don't know much about it? The smarter thing to do would be to accept lack of knowledge in the subject under discussion and accept that we hold our believes about something (whether rationally or irrationally does not matter) for reasons that we deem valid. No one becomes any less intelligent or less of a critical-thinker if they believe in something. Is it so difficult to be humble about our own abilities?

What is the need to be hell bent on showing someone's belief is irrational?

Recently I started a thread asking about the great achievers who were Humanists. I didn't check it yesterday so if someone has responded I don't know. But I don't see Humanists being any great achievers in various subjects in the world. Can you name some? Would it be right for me to conclude then that Humanists are a pack of pseudo-intellects? No, right? Where is your rational thought? Would it not be irrational to deem something useless without even knowing what it is, or how it is, or where it is, or ...?

Is there anyone among us in this forum who can challenge, with relevant expertise in medicine and healthcare, Nancy on homeopathy? Let's then get that person to challenge Nancy so they can debate even at the level of technicalities.

Does anyone have the requisite knowledge to involve Nancy in a serious debate rather than saying "I need evidence" which basically means I need evidence which my eyes and my brain want to see and perceive? If yes let's have a fair one against one.

I already know that many of you here have no greater knowledge than even someone like me when it comes to healthcare and medicine. It is pretty apparent. But since you hold yourselves in enough esteem to demand "we need evidence not anecdotes", let's figure out how good we really are at the subject.

And it is fair to expect people to debate from their experience instead of copy-pasting quotes from the web. Because if the person really knows stuff then he or she will be able to present his perspective with enough conviction and it will be pretty apparent when one speaks from his or her experience.


We. We. We. We..............When the skeptics would shed their ego and bossy attitude.? Why don't they be humble? Are they trained to be rude and sarcastic? Are they also the same in their personal lives? If no (god forbids if yes), it indicates double personality.

We.We.We...............Self proclaimed experts

Why don't we all share our expertise to understand the title/topic under discussion. Paolo, nick, nirvanam, alan: each one expert in his or her domain. Why not share our strengths?

_________________
Real (Homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional conventional Medicine (CAM) fails


December 17th, 2009, 5:44 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am
Posts: 1474
Location: Forest Hill, London
Nancy, I am interested by the assertion that you are entitled to use the title Dr. - having looked at your credentials you do not seem to have completed a course of study that entitles you to anything more than the suffix BHMS (Homeopathy) which you were awarded by the Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh.

Could you please clarify why you feel entitled to use the title Dr.?
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
When the skeptics would shed their ego and bossy attitude.? Why don't they be humble? Are they trained to be rude and sarcastic? Are they also the same in their personal lives? If no (god forbids if yes), it indicates double personality.

Frankly Nancy I feel it necessary point to your past behaviour both on this site and in the comment section of various blogs. You constantly make assertions of the efficacy of homeopathy despite an abyssmal lack of evidence to support your statements. You then commit logical fallacy after logical fallacy when trying to offer support.

I don't care about pharmaceutical companies - most of them are full of bullshit and we know it, but that does not make homeopathy any better.

_________________
Ask a biologist
My blog


December 17th, 2009, 5:56 pm
Profile WWW
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm
Posts: 7288
Location: UK
Locked for editing.



Edit:

I've now completed the edit to make the various strands of discussion easier to follow. From the original thread, I've created this one and two others here:

Nancy's latest intervention

Nirvanam's contribution


The edit may not be perfect but it's the best I can do.


December 17th, 2009, 5:56 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm
Posts: 3985
Nancy, I am still awaiting a reply to my post to you re: experience with homeopathy. The post is in this thread in case you're not sure where to find it.

_________________
Transformative fire...


December 18th, 2009, 1:11 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15370
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Homeopathic ‘placebo’: much more effective than conventional medicine’s placebo

Allen Roses, of GSK told a scientific meeting in London that the "vast majority of drugs only work in 30 or 50% of people." It was reported on the front page of the Independent newspaper on 8 December .
Nancy

A report in a newspaper of what someone said at a meeting???

Quote:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;327/7428/1366
And I don't have access to the BMJ. So no help there, then.

Quote:
BMJ Clinical Evidence says only somewhere between 26-34% of 2,500 commonly used treatments have some proven benefit. The Bristol study [Bristol Homeopathic Hospital] concluded 70%+ of patients reported some improvement with homeopathic treatment. The Berlin study came up with similar percentages and concluded that patients using homeopathy had better outcomes than patients using conventional medicine. Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital’s ongoing audits of patient response return similar percentages.
Is the above bit from the BMJ or the homeopathy4health website - it is unclear.

Quote:
It’s worth emphasising that while controls might be absent in these studies, the patient cohorts tend to have a high percentage (80%+) of chronic complaints of which an equally high percentage (80%+) have failed to respond to conventional treatment. If they failed to respond to conventional treatment, in which the placebo effect is likely to be considerably stronger than in homeopathy, then it’s reasonable to suggest that these are patients who are not particularly susceptible to placebo response. If they failed to respond to conventional treatment, then it’s reasonable to suggest that for these patients, homeopathy proved to be the more effective option.”

SOURCE: http://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com
So wherever this was published, it was uncontrolled. Can you explain to me why an uncopntrolled study is of any value? The explanation given in the above paragraph is a very poor excuse. Is there a problem with doing controled trials, placebo or otherwise. Do homeopaths have a problem with controlled trials?

Quote:
Not only homeopathy, acupuncture placebo is much more effective than conventional medicine
And how do you know this? Any proper evidence?

Quote:
in a German randomised controlled back-pain study, acupuncture 'placebo' was shown to be nearly twice as effective as the best conventional medicine has to offer. So, according to the principles of EBM as currently practiced, conventional medicine is less effective than an acupuncture placebo.

Reference: Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery
What trial was Popper referring to? I take it you haven't read any of the latest reviews of acupuncture, then?

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 18th, 2009, 2:40 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15370
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nancy came on here and asserted that homeopathy worked. We did not ask her to come here. But having done so, it is incumbent on her to answer the criticism made of her assertions.


Totally false. The thread is started by madam maria ( and contributed by others) ridiculing homeopathy and calling it nonsense, , it does not work, etc for the next 150 posts. My first post is around 152 challenging everyone. I know skeptics likes to challenge and do not liked to be challenged.

We do not ask to come here: Again showing superiority complex.
What? You didn't come on here and assert that homeopathy worked? Would you like to tell us what you were doing in your first few posts if not asserting that homeopathy worked?

Maria gave loads of evidence why homeopathy didn't work — evidence that you ignored, but you simply posted link after link after link to anecdotes, single case studies, biased trials, uncontrolled trials, unrandomised trials and non-blinded trials. I'm sure it has been explained to you on several occasions why what you presented is just not acceptable. You choose not to counter our reasons for rejecting what you think to be evidence and just continue to post yet more of the same. Why should we accept now what we rejected for very good reasons previously?

If you want to 'challenge', look at the reviews jdc posted and tell us why they are wrong.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 18th, 2009, 2:49 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15370
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Alan H wrote:

If you want to go down this route, choose one of the 'laws' of homeopathy, explain it and explain why it is true.



Homeopathy is non-toxic system of medical science originated in Germany by Dr. Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) (the founder and father of homeopathy). He was M.D. in conventional medicine. He realised his own school of medicine (conventional) was not helping the patients and spent years researching on homeopathy. The term “homoeopathy” was coined in 1807.

The basic fundamental principles of Homeopathy are: -

1. Law of similars/Like cures like (1796): Disease can be cured by a medicinal substance given in micro doses that produces similar symptoms in health people when given in large doses.
http://www.jorhodeshomeopathy.co.uk/jo- ... -like.html

2. Law of minimum dose (1801): Since the homoeopathic medicines act at a dynamic level, only a minute quantity of the medicine is administered which is enough/sufficient to stimulate the dynamically deranged vital force/innate healing powers to bring about the necessary curative change in a patient, not more that that, that means no overdosing. Infinitesimally small dose of potentised medicine.
Potentising the medicine increases it collative medicinal powers through dynamisation (serial dilution and succussion/trituration) and avoids unwanted side-effects.

3. Law of simplex (1810): At any given time, only one remedy can be the exact similar to the presenting disease condition of the patient. So a single remedy (one remedy at a time) is given based upon their constitution/totality of the symptoms which includes physical, mental, and emotional aspects/symptoms. This results in individualization i.e. it may require different medicine for different people suffering from same disease

4. Hering law of direction of cure (1845): Cure progresses from above downwards, from within outwards, from more important organ to less important one, in reverse order of coming of the symptoms
Yes, yes, yes we know all that, Nancy. Now you've stated the 'laws', start explaining WHY they are laws, what has been done to prove they are valid and what has been done to prove them wrong.

I note with weariness that the first link you give cites two news articles that have nothing to do with homeopathy. Although not stated in the article, the doses were far higher than the vast majority of homeopathic potions and I sincerely doubt they were ever succussed. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? Do you have the original papers that these news reports were about?

I note you cite no evidence for the other 'laws'.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 18th, 2009, 2:58 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15370
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
We. We. We. We..............When the skeptics would shed their ego and bossy attitude.? Why don't they be humble? Are they trained to be rude and sarcastic? Are they also the same in their personal lives? If no (god forbids if yes), it indicates double personality.

We.We.We...............Self proclaimed experts

Why don't we all share our expertise to understand the title/topic under discussion. Paolo, nick, nirvanam, alan: each one expert in his or her domain. Why not share our strengths?
We will be humble before EVIDENCE, repeatable, genuine, unbiased evidence.

Discussion? What discussion? We have been unable to get you to discuss! Is it that you really don't understand the scientific method, nor how to debate?

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 18th, 2009, 3:02 am
Profile WWW
Banned
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2008, 11:38 am
Posts: 212
Location: Gurgaon, India
Paolo wrote:
Nancy, I am interested by the assertion that you are entitled to use the title Dr. - having looked at your credentials you do not seem to have completed a course of study that entitles you to anything more than the suffix BHMS (Homeopathy) which you were awarded by the Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh.

Could you please clarify why you feel entitled to use the title Dr.?


You better ask this question to Govermemt of India

_________________
Real (Homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional conventional Medicine (CAM) fails


December 18th, 2009, 12:07 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm
Posts: 7288
Location: UK
Ding dong the quack has gone. I'm dumping this thread.


December 19th, 2009, 12:18 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15370
Nancy interviews herself

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


February 16th, 2010, 12:13 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: November 20th, 2008, 6:40 pm
Posts: 4211
Location: Beautiful Ayrshire
Geez!! She doesn't do herself any favours, does she?
Quote:
The patient/doctor relationship is part of the success of treatment. What should it be like?
Same as that of a child/parent: caring
What is the best way to give bad news to a patient?
Give the news to the patient's guardian


:hilarity:

maybe I should check with my guardian that it's OK to post this.

_________________
David Bowie: "Ageing like a Golden God"


February 16th, 2010, 6:07 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2009, 12:04 am
Posts: 239
Bad news for a patient? Would that be along the lines of "While I've been treating you with magic water your cancer has got a lot worse and it's now probably terminal where you could have probably been cured if it had been treated earlier"?

_________________
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.


February 16th, 2010, 8:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: November 20th, 2008, 6:40 pm
Posts: 4211
Location: Beautiful Ayrshire
I think Nancy is suggesting that she would tell the guardian, "While I've been treating her/him with magic water his/her cancer has got a lot worse and it's now probably terminal where he/she could have probably been cured if it had been treated earlier. But don't tell them"

_________________
David Bowie: "Ageing like a Golden God"


February 16th, 2010, 9:51 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15370
getreal wrote:
maybe I should check with my guardian that it's OK to post this.
You mean someone is responsible for you??? :wink:

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


February 16th, 2010, 11:34 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.