Comments on: Homeopathy: Wasting resources for distributing water http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/ Discussions on science, skepticism, pseudoscience; trips on the borders of religion and science; brief adventures in hi-fi; this is a Journey through a Burning Mind... Sat, 19 May 2012 16:52:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Marc http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16977 Marc Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:07:58 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16977 Attention to detail is important, to Nick. This is a science forum post so if you want to allude to impure water, you only have to say that. If we're taking about pure water, then it's the compound produced in a vacuum before hitting the container vessel. Gracious, you can't even spell my name correctly which says a lot about how you approach these things. Yes, I know that's harsh, but if you demand accuracy then so do I. As Stavros has just implied, pure water is required by Homoeopathy to make these substances; yet you can't get that. When Hahnemann invented this, he had no way to test for the things we do now - never mind obtaining pure water. Merely regurgitating from Mr Chaplain's website won't help if you don't understand the fundamentals which clearly he (and Stavros) do. I can quote from websites that claim the speed of light is variable and that the Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs. Go have a look at Conservapedia - which claims to be a reference you can trust: which is obviously some variation of the word trust that does not appear in my dictionary. Water isn't complex - the stuff in it might be, but there's no reliable evidence that homoeopathy does anything at all; and bucket loads saying that it's not worth the water it's diluted in. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go wash my brains. I have a blog entry to write.
If we’re taking about pure water, then it’s the compound produced in a vacuum before hitting the container vessel.

Gracious, you can’t even spell my name correctly which says a lot about how you approach these things. Yes, I know that’s harsh, but if you demand accuracy then so do I.

As Stavros has just implied, pure water is required by Homoeopathy to make these substances; yet you can’t get that. When Hahnemann invented this, he had no way to test for the things we do now - never mind obtaining pure water.

Merely regurgitating from Mr Chaplain’s website won’t help if you don’t understand the fundamentals which clearly he (and Stavros) do.

I can quote from websites that claim the speed of light is variable and that the Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs. Go have a look at Conservapedia - which claims to be a reference you can trust: which is obviously some variation of the word trust that does not appear in my dictionary.

Water isn’t complex - the stuff in it might be, but there’s no reliable evidence that homoeopathy does anything at all; and bucket loads saying that it’s not worth the water it’s diluted in.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll go wash my brains. I have a blog entry to write.]]> By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16975 Stavros Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:49:07 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16975 <blockquote>signify that water we think of as pure has impurities</blockquote> Even this goes against homeopathic practices! How does the water know which substance to remember between the impurities and the treating agent?!? signify that water we think of as pure has impurities
Even this goes against homeopathic practices! How does the water know which substance to remember between the impurities and the treating agent?!?]]> By: Nick http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16974 Nick Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:45:21 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16974 Mark, Its not me that "says" water is complex. It's Martin Chaplin. my quotes round "pure" were to signify that water we think of as pure has impurities <blockquote>Distilled and deionized water contain significant and varying quantities of contaminating ions. Often the criteria for ‘purity’ is the conductivity, but this will not show ionic contaminants at nanomolar, or even somewhat higher, concentrations due to the relatively high conductivity of the H+ and OH- ions naturally present. Other materials present will include previously dissolved solutes, dissolved gasses dependent on the laboratory atmosphere, gaseous nanobubbles [500d], material dissolved or detached from the containing vessels [1207], solid particles and aerosols (also dependent on the laboratory history) entering from the gas phase, and redox materials produced from water molecules [1066] and other solutes produced on standing...</blockquote> http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html#comp
Distilled and deionized water contain significant and varying quantities of contaminating ions. Often the criteria for ‘purity’ is the conductivity, but this will not show ionic contaminants at nanomolar, or even somewhat higher, concentrations due to the relatively high conductivity of the H+ and OH- ions naturally present. Other materials present will include previously dissolved solutes, dissolved gasses dependent on the laboratory atmosphere, gaseous nanobubbles [500d], material dissolved or detached from the containing vessels [1207], solid particles and aerosols (also dependent on the laboratory history) entering from the gas phase, and redox materials produced from water molecules [1066] and other solutes produced on standing…


http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html#comp]]> By: sciencebitches http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16973 sciencebitches Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:43:03 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16973 Well said Marc By: Marc http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16972 Marc Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:41:23 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16972 Millions of people believe in Yahweh, YE Creation and miracles, that doesn't mean they're right. Trials where Homeopathy is disproved (even without patients) are carefully researched; if it worked, the drug companies would be making a fortune! Placebo is a powerful effect regardless of what we're testing (including real medicine). It's one thing to have an open mind, it's another thing entirely to be silly about it and ignore a crushing proof. PI is an irrational number - we'll never know it to the infinite accuracy because it's infinitely long. We know this and we move on. Homeopathy has been proven to the nth degree to be false and it's only deluded fools like Benneth who continue to press for it. That's no different to the drivel spouted by "Dr." Duane Gish at any chance he gets. Homoeopathy is easily disproven by Avagadro's constant because at even fairly early dilutions, there's no active ingredient left in the sample: which Stavros correctly discusses in the post. As for homoeopathic diagnosis, I believe you'll find that is an oxymoron. Good grief, it's Darwin's bi-centenary and we're arguing about this. Sometimes you just have to get off the fence and move on.
Trials where Homeopathy is disproved (even without patients) are carefully researched; if it worked, the drug companies would be making a fortune! Placebo is a powerful effect regardless of what we’re testing (including real medicine).

It’s one thing to have an open mind, it’s another thing entirely to be silly about it and ignore a crushing proof. PI is an irrational number - we’ll never know it to the infinite accuracy because it’s infinitely long. We know this and we move on. Homeopathy has been proven to the nth degree to be false and it’s only deluded fools like Benneth who continue to press for it. That’s no different to the drivel spouted by “Dr.” Duane Gish at any chance he gets.

Homoeopathy is easily disproven by Avagadro’s constant because at even fairly early dilutions, there’s no active ingredient left in the sample: which Stavros correctly discusses in the post.

As for homoeopathic diagnosis, I believe you’ll find that is an oxymoron.

Good grief, it’s Darwin’s bi-centenary and we’re arguing about this.

Sometimes you just have to get off the fence and move on.]]> By: Nick http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16971 Nick Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:24:03 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16971 All the studies I've seen to "disprove" homeopathy are carefully crafted. It's virtually impossible to test homeopathy in trial, because part of the treatment involves placaebo, patients presenting with smalar medical symptoms are not necessarily sufferng as a result of the same cause, ane each patient potentially requires a different treatment. The symptoms the homeopath analyses are not the same as medically dagnosed symptoms. It is also difficult to tell if people "just got better anyway", irrespective of which trial group they belonged to. I don't necessarily believe it works, but I am very curious about why so many believe it works and the possible mechanism of action. I believe scientific thinking demands ambivalence.
I don’t necessarily believe it works, but I am very curious about why so many believe it works and the possible mechanism of action. I believe scientific thinking demands ambivalence.]]> By: Marc http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16970 Marc Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:12:17 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16970 Speaks volumes to me. Especially when Nick says that "pure" water is complex. It's one of the simplest compounds we have - if not the simplest. Pure water is blue and an insulator; yet most of us (correctly for the most part) think of it as a transparent conductor. My experience of homoeopaths is that they like to claim the title of Doctor without having the intelligence or the intellect. And I have read the original text on it too. My experience of homoeopaths is that they like to claim the title of Doctor without having the intelligence or the intellect. And I have read the original text on it too.]]> By: sciencebitches http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16967 sciencebitches Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:54:46 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16967 <blockquote>Read his section on published evidence under homeopathy. No one has “proved” anything one way or another. I just retain an open mind, neither in one camp nor the other.</blockquote> after 200 years, miraculous claims, and a literature strongly pointing to placebo effect, what more do you need? if we are talking about clinically relevant effects as Homeopaths claim of course, then studies would have conclusively shown that after so many trials. instead, better studies show negative results. Doesnt that tell you anything? Read his section on published evidence under homeopathy. No one has “proved” anything one way or another. I just retain an open mind, neither in one camp nor the other.
after 200 years, miraculous claims, and a literature strongly pointing to placebo effect, what more do you need? if we are talking about clinically relevant effects as Homeopaths claim of course, then studies would have conclusively shown that after so many trials. instead, better studies show negative results. Doesnt that tell you anything?]]> By: Nick http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16965 Nick Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:47:55 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16965 Of course I read the papers. In the section does water have memory QUOTE <em>"Liquid water is clearly a very complex system even before the further complexity of molecular clusters, gas-liquid and solid-liquid surfaces, reactions between these materials, the consequences of physical and electromagnetic processing and the addition of ethanol are considered. Any or a combination of these factors may cause 'memory' of past solutes and processing in water. Some of these solutions are capable of causing non-specific clinical effects whereas others may cause effects specifically linked to the solution's (and laboratory) history, as outlined below " "Does the glassware matter? The process of silica dissolution has been much studied [1109, 1207] ever since it was proven by Lavoisier over 200 years ago and fits with this argument. This may explain why glass is preferred over polypropylene tubes. It should be noted that dissolved silica is capable of forming solid particles with complementary structures (that is, imprints) to dissolved solutes and macromolecules and such particles will 'remember' these complementary structures essentially forever."</em> Yes I believe it is the glassware in solution that retains any memory. What does that matter? Even "pure" water is complex, it has lots of other things dissolved in it. Whether solutes have any effect is a whole other debate. But many people discount homeopathy simply because they cannot see how it could work. Continuing to look at difficult qustions and unexplained phenomena is the halmark of science, even if you don't see it like that. Failure to do so enhances human knowledge not one iota. Read his section on published evidence under homeopathy. No one has "proved" anything one way or another. I just retain an open mind, neither in one camp nor the other. I keep looking a Chaplin because he is enhancing our knowledge.
In the section does water have memory QUOTE

“Liquid water is clearly a very complex system even before the further complexity of molecular clusters, gas-liquid and solid-liquid surfaces, reactions between these materials, the consequences of physical and electromagnetic processing and the addition of ethanol are considered. Any or a combination of these factors may cause ‘memory’ of past solutes and processing in water. Some of these solutions are capable of causing non-specific clinical effects whereas others may cause effects specifically linked to the solution’s (and laboratory) history, as outlined below ”

“Does the glassware matter?


The process of silica dissolution has been much studied [1109, 1207] ever since it was proven by Lavoisier over 200 years ago and fits with this argument. This may explain why glass is preferred over polypropylene tubes. It should be noted that dissolved silica is capable of forming solid particles with complementary structures (that is, imprints) to dissolved solutes and macromolecules and such particles will ‘remember’ these complementary structures essentially forever.”

Yes I believe it is the glassware in solution that retains any memory. What does that matter? Even “pure” water is complex, it has lots of other things dissolved in it. Whether solutes have any effect is a whole other debate. But many people discount homeopathy simply because they cannot see how it could work. Continuing to look at difficult qustions and unexplained phenomena is the halmark of science, even if you don’t see it like that. Failure to do so enhances human knowledge not one iota.

Read his section on published evidence under homeopathy. No one has “proved” anything one way or another. I just retain an open mind, neither in one camp nor the other. I keep looking a Chaplin because he is enhancing our knowledge.]]> By: Marc http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16961 Marc Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:05:17 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16961 Water doesn't have memory - end of story. Fallacy is fallacy no matter how hard you look at it or dress it up and if you're going to quote scientific papers or websites, you'd bloody well better read them. This particular example comes to a very definite conclusion regarding junk science. QUOTE: "...experimental evidence indicates that such changes are due primarily to solute and surface changes occurring during this processing. The experimentally corroborated memory phenomena <em><strong>cannot be taken as supporting the basic tenets of homeopathy</strong></em> although they can explain some effects." What you call "memory" is minute amounts of glass being dissolved into the water. You can chase a rainbow to the end of the earth, but you'll never find the pot of gold because there never was one.
This particular example comes to a very definite conclusion regarding junk science.

QUOTE:
“…experimental evidence indicates that such changes are due primarily to solute and surface changes occurring during this processing. The experimentally corroborated memory phenomena cannot be taken as supporting the basic tenets of homeopathy although they can explain some effects.”

What you call “memory” is minute amounts of glass being dissolved into the water. You can chase a rainbow to the end of the earth, but you’ll never find the pot of gold because there never was one.]]> By: Nick http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16959 Nick Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:43:41 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16959 Water is fascinating stuff. Anyone intersted in looking at the possibilities should first understand all of the complexities. http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/index.html ..introduces many concepts and has a look at homeopathy and memory of water, but not coming to any definte conclusion.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/index.html

..introduces many concepts and has a look at homeopathy and memory of water, but not coming to any definte conclusion.]]> By: Marc http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16954 Marc Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:17:43 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16954 LOL! By: sciencebitches http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16936 sciencebitches Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:38:04 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16936 why, what's wrong with Benneth? :-P ]]> By: Marc http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-16926 Marc Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:01:02 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-16926 Nice trackback to that mindboggling repository of stupidity, John Benneth. The man is a complete lunatic of course, he calls himself Bandershot on Youtube - if he's still on there and spreads his ignorance like manure. It's worth as less. By: Eric http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-11162 Eric Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:25:56 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-11162 <strong>arthritis cures japanese...</strong> Nevertheless there will always be a minority who will not get the point you are trying to make.... arthritis cures japanese… Nevertheless there will always be a minority who will not get the point you are trying to make….]]> By: Nick http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-2914 Nick Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:55:35 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-2914 Ps. I agree non-published work is not worth the paper it is written on! By: Nick http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-2913 Nick Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:53:24 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-2913 Hi Stavros, I don't think I would accept anyone's beliefs. I might find their hypothesis more attractive than those representing received wisdom, but only if their case is strong. As you know, you cannot prove anything true (except in a mathematical context), only that a hypothisis is false. I first became aware that mainstream hypotheses might be inaccurate when doing a critical analysis of the research that supported the advised treament for my condition. The advice made things worse for me not better. That was in 2002, now I find many others think along the same lines. Plausible altenative hypothesis/methods come from many interesting sourses, such as... Doctors who treat their patients in a particular way and get consistent results over a number of years. This type of evidence occurs quite frequently, but is not allowed because it is anecdotal. It would have to be repeated under trial conditions, that is where costs come in. Besides most doctors are too busy earning a living.. Sometimes, evidence comes from revisiting "forgotten" research. Historically a new way of working may replace an established conventional method, and then later proves unreliable. Just by way of example, Broda Barnes, a doctor from the early part of the 20th century established a strong indicator of low thyroid function by measuring axillary temperature. He made obsevations over many years and at one time this method appeared in the Physician's Desk Reference manual. Then someone invented a blood test where TSH is measured. Now it is believed that 13million Americans with hypothyroid go undiagnosed http://thyroid.about.com/od/drstevenhotze/a/hotze_3.htm. Barne's approach, once accepted, is now depricated and never revisited. It was never subject to clinical trial in the first place and that is why people critise it. No one seems to want to trial it. Sometimes information comes from patient research. They've had the disease and are providing information they have discoved that your doctor might not tell you. A good example here is Mary Shomon who suffered hypothyroidism and has done extensive literature research and wrote about her findings. These works can be well referenced, but go unheeded by mainstream medicine or its researchers because they are not written by a doctor. Lastly, there is critical analysis of published research. Often there is nothing wrong with the research other than the results are open to interpretation. Reappraisal shows them under a different light. A good example is Dr. Ravnskov´s "The Cholesterol Myths". It points out many holes and invalid assumptions and conclusions in the research supporting the lipid hypothesis. eg one of his papers http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/12/927?ijkey=172mwKXqzgmtE&keytype=ref Big pharmas fight this initiative tooth and nail because if accepted it would put a massive hole in their profits. What I find alarming is that people continually accept recieved wisdom without ever satisfying themselves the research on which it is founded was good. (Some times it is good). For example I continuously come across good reports about metformin for diabetes. It has an excellent safety record and few side effects. I have no reason to knock it, but I know it is detoxified in the liver and so puts strain on the body. There are other approaches to diabetes that you have to dig out. No-one has ever subjected them to trial, so they may not work. But then they are worth trying just in case they work for you. I think one of the problems is that sometimes a drug might get well established as the result of early research. Then the Big pharma has so much invested in it, it will defend its position against any research that shows it is harmful, not needed or has natural alternatives. Take Vioxx for example. Merck may have buried relevant information prior to FDA drug approval. It cost them a packet in the end because a further trial showed that many people taking Vioxx suffered stroke and heart attack. Science won out in the end, but how much sufferng went on in the meantime. It takes 20-30 years for new findings to be accepted in medicine. Sometimes it is really worth finding out what they are in case they work for you. You will see things differently as you get older for two reasons. 1. your experience will increase and 2. Unless you are exceptionally lucky or look after your health well, you will fall prey to a disease of civilsation. Take care, Nick
I don’t think I would accept anyone’s beliefs. I might find their hypothesis more attractive than those representing received wisdom, but only if their case is strong. As you know, you cannot prove anything true (except in a mathematical context), only that a hypothisis is false. I first became aware that mainstream hypotheses might be inaccurate when doing a critical analysis of the research that supported the advised treament for my condition. The advice made things worse for me not better. That was in 2002, now I find many others think along the same lines.

Plausible altenative hypothesis/methods come from many interesting sourses, such as…

Doctors who treat their patients in a particular way and get consistent results over a number of years. This type of evidence occurs quite frequently, but is not allowed because it is anecdotal. It would have to be repeated under trial conditions, that is where costs come in. Besides most doctors are too busy earning a living..
Sometimes, evidence comes from revisiting “forgotten” research. Historically a new way of working may replace an established conventional method, and then later proves unreliable. Just by way of example, Broda Barnes, a doctor from the early part of the 20th century established a strong indicator of low thyroid function by measuring axillary temperature. He made obsevations over many years and at one time this method appeared in the Physician’s Desk Reference manual. Then someone invented a blood test where TSH is measured. Now it is believed that 13million Americans with hypothyroid go undiagnosed http://thyroid.about.com/od/drstevenhotze/a/hotze_3.htm.
Barne’s approach, once accepted, is now depricated and never revisited. It was never subject to clinical trial in the first place and that is why people critise it. No one seems to want to trial it.
Sometimes information comes from patient research. They’ve had the disease and are providing information they have discoved that your doctor might not tell you. A good example here is Mary Shomon who suffered hypothyroidism and has done extensive literature research and wrote about her findings. These works can be well referenced, but go unheeded by mainstream medicine or its researchers because they are not written by a doctor.
Lastly, there is critical analysis of published research. Often there is nothing wrong with the research other than the results are open to interpretation. Reappraisal shows them under a different light. A good example is Dr. Ravnskov´s “The Cholesterol Myths”. It points out many holes and invalid assumptions and conclusions in the research supporting the lipid hypothesis.
eg one of his papers http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/12/927?ijkey=172mwKXqzgmtE&keytype=ref

Big pharmas fight this initiative tooth and nail because if accepted it would put a massive hole in their profits.

What I find alarming is that people continually accept recieved wisdom without ever satisfying themselves the research on which it is founded was good. (Some times it is good). For example I continuously come across good reports about metformin for diabetes. It has an excellent safety record and few side effects. I have no reason to knock it, but I know it is detoxified in the liver and so puts strain on the body. There are other approaches to diabetes that you have to dig out. No-one has ever subjected them to trial, so they may not work. But then they are worth trying just in case they work for you.

I think one of the problems is that sometimes a drug might get well established as the result of early research. Then the Big pharma has so much invested in it, it will defend its position against any research that shows it is harmful, not needed or has natural alternatives. Take Vioxx for example. Merck may have buried relevant information prior to FDA drug approval. It cost them a packet in the end because a further trial showed that many people taking Vioxx suffered stroke and heart attack. Science won out in the end, but how much sufferng went on in the meantime.
It takes 20-30 years for new findings to be accepted in medicine. Sometimes it is really worth finding out what they are in case they work for you.

You will see things differently as you get older for two reasons. 1. your experience will increase and 2. Unless you are exceptionally lucky or look after your health well, you will fall prey to a disease of civilsation.

Take care,

Nick]]> By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-2905 Stavros Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:46:56 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-2905 Nick, one more question: if they have not done research and/or have not published their ideas, on what basis do you accept their beliefs? By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-2904 Stavros Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:40:24 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-2904 Nick, the "whining" was not referring to you -sorry if you interpreted it that way. "Research costs money, lots of it." If they have not done any research how did they reach their conclusions in the first place?!? I am not naive, and the world in academia is not free of egos and conflicts -believe me! I am just not willing to accept any idea if it is not supported by evidence! There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, this is the correct way to go -how else can you filter through every idea anyone tells you? It is good to write books as long as one (again) backs up his claims! Otherwise it might seem like one is just using his authority to propagate his beliefs (which has happened many times and still happens often). Further, as I have made clear many times, this is not my point of view but the scientific consensus and the evidence base. I always backup what I say with references and if I have not done it at some points please let me know and I can do it retrospectively. I am not pulling things out of my ass here -as you say, I am not an expert in these areas. But I can read scientific papers and I can think critically. Finally, what I have formally studied in my academic environment does not mean that I have not studied physics, cosmology, some biology, and lots of (*lots of*) stuff on alternative medicine.
the “whining” was not referring to you -sorry if you interpreted it that way.

“Research costs money, lots of it.” If they have not done any research how did they reach their conclusions in the first place?!?

I am not naive, and the world in academia is not free of egos and conflicts -believe me! I am just not willing to accept any idea if it is not supported by evidence! There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, this is the correct way to go -how else can you filter through every idea anyone tells you?

It is good to write books as long as one (again) backs up his claims! Otherwise it might seem like one is just using his authority to propagate his beliefs (which has happened many times and still happens often).

Further, as I have made clear many times, this is not my point of view but the scientific consensus and the evidence base. I always backup what I say with references and if I have not done it at some points please let me know and I can do it retrospectively. I am not pulling things out of my ass here -as you say, I am not an expert in these areas. But I can read scientific papers and I can think critically.

Finally, what I have formally studied in my academic environment does not mean that I have not studied physics, cosmology, some biology, and lots of (*lots of*) stuff on alternative medicine.]]> By: Nick http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/comment-page-2/#comment-2903 Nick Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:30:43 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/01/14/homeopathy-wasting-resources-for-distributing-water/#comment-2903 Hi Stavros, Ah! Sorry, just read the "about you". Now I understand. You have only experience academia. I see that you are very young, and have an IT knowlegde base and appear not to have worked in industry. I worked for 30 years as an blue chip IT professonal in industry and everything is exactly as you describe it because there is no real room for bull. Everything has to be precise. (However, there are very clever, unscruplulous and vicious characters there who manipulate everything to their own ends. I have the scars to prove it) The world of medicine and health is just not like IT, it is much more fuzzy and open to abuse. You appear not to have studied A&P, biology, medicine, nutrition or CAM, yet you are so convinced your point of view is right, and are exlaining what doctors should be doing. As they say, I'm too old to know everything.
Ah! Sorry, just read the “about you”. Now I understand. You have only experience academia. I see that you are very young, and have an IT knowlegde base and appear not to have worked in industry. I worked for 30 years as an blue chip IT professonal in industry and everything is exactly as you describe it because there is no real room for bull. Everything has to be precise. (However, there are very clever, unscruplulous and vicious characters there who manipulate everything to their own ends. I have the scars to prove it) The world of medicine and health is just not like IT, it is much more fuzzy and open to abuse. You appear not to have studied A&P, biology, medicine, nutrition or CAM, yet you are so convinced your point of view is right, and are exlaining what doctors should be doing. As they say, I’m too old to know everything.]]>