You are viewing shpalman

< back | 0 - 10 |  
shpalman [userpic]

10:23

31st January 2010 (08:38)

[BPSDB] Sceptics stage homeopathy ‘overdose’: ‘The society [of Homeopaths]' chief executive, Paula Ross, said: “This is an ill advised publicity stunt in very poor taste, which does nothing to advance the scientific debate about how homeopathy actually works.”’

It. Doesn't. Work.

There's no ‘scientific debate’ to be had about how something works if it doesn't work and it the quality of your science is represented by nonsense like this.

shpalman [userpic]

Attenti alla omeopatia

19th June 2009 (20:56)

Ho appena sentito, sul Radio Monte Carlo, qualcuno (una “farmacista”) che spiegava quale sono le remedie omeopatiche di portare in vacanza. Volgio dire, in italiano (ma non so se i motori di ricerca troveranno comunque) che omeopatia è una grande cagata che non funzione per niente e non ha nessun base nè scientifico nè medico, ed è presente in farmacie solo così che Boiron possono pigliare soldi. Evitalo.Leggi di piùCollapse )

shpalman [userpic]

Experimenting with phenomena...

18th June 2009 (19:58)

... which aren't actually there at all

[BPSDB] It's Homeopathy Awareness Week, and I can think of no better way of stopping people wasting time and money on homeopathy than by making them aware of exactly what homeopathy thinks it is. To this end, we have jdc325, Zeno, APGaylard, AndyD, Zygoma, The Quackometer, David Colquhoun, Orac, and Steven Novella (Homeopathy Awareness Week, Homeopathy Awareness Week, Homeopathy Awareness Week, Homeopathy Awareness Week, Homeopathy Awareness Week, Homeopathy Awareness Week, Homeopathy Awareness Week, Homeopathy Awareness Week, Homeopathy Awareness Week) helping to spread awareness of what a great big pile of nonsense homeopathy is. Read more...Collapse )

shpalman [userpic]

Golden Balls

14th June 2009 (11:30)

[BPSDB] I don't want to spend too much time picking apart Lionel R. Milgrom's1 reading of Sir Michael Rawlins's speech in his J. Alt. Complement. Med. editorial which has very little to do with Otto Weingärtner's2 recent defence of the attempts of Shang et al. and Maddox et al. to teach homeopaths about doing experiments properly3,4 instead of craply.5,6 Holfordwatch have already taken apart Patrick Holford's attempt at quote mining it, and Badly Shaved Monkey introduced the subject at JREF and badscience.net, and I've tried to explain how the DBRCT is just the most reliable way of working out if your intervention is actually doing anything or not, to minimize the errors and converge on the right answer in the way which Weingärtner2 describes (and it wouldn't be necessary to be scrabbling about in the statistical noise if homeopathy worked as well as some of these people claim it does). Read more...Collapse )

shpalman [userpic]

Let me come with you, I can see... I can see perfectly...

18th April 2009 (14:24)

[BPSDB] Recently I have been mostly reading “Homeopathic Pathogenetic Trials Produce Specific Symptoms Different from Placebo1 and at first sight the result looks very interesting: homeopathic remedies or placebo were given to healthy volunteers in a double-blinded manner, “proving symptoms” were assigned to their remedies by a materia medica expert, and it turned out that the symptoms matched the remedies the participants were taking. In fact they matched very well: out of the 165 symptoms experienced by the 25 participants during the four day trial, on average the participants in the two groups taking different homeopathic remedies experienced five or six symptoms specific to those remedies each while the participants in the placebo group experienced about 10—11 “non-specific” symptoms each. The number of inconsistent symptoms experienced in each group (i.e. non-specific symptoms or symptoms associated with the wrong remedy experienced in the homeopathy groups) was zero. These impressive results even contradict some of the rubbish results in the literature.2,3 Out of the discussion at JREF, where you can find many quotes from the paper which I don't want to reproduce here, I've developed the following thoughts.Read more...Collapse )

shpalman [userpic]

Walking into Lampposts

15th July 2008 (18:31)

BPSDBThere's an excerpt from Rowena Ronson's book, Looking Back Moving Forward [1] featuring an interview with Lionel Milgrom, at Galahomeopathy:

Read more...Collapse )

shpalman [userpic]

That's the way (aha, aha)...

13th July 2008 (15:07)

.. I Leick it (aha, aha)

BPSDBPhilippe Leick [1,2] wrote a letter [3] (as did many others) to Homeopathy to comment on papers by Lionel Milgrom [4] and Otto Weingärtner [5]. Milgrom responded [6], as did Harald Walach [7] (a coauthor of the Weak Quantum Theory paper [8], previously criticised by Leick [1]) and Leick dealt with this in a JREF thread.

These are the key points from Milgrom (another point is addressed elsewhere on JREF) which Leick deals with, to which I'll add my own comments:

Read more...Collapse )

shpalman [userpic]

Further misunderstanding of coherence

8th July 2008 (17:50)

Comment on “Macroscopic Quantum Coherence in Patient-Practitioner-Remedy Entanglement: The Quantized Fluctuation Field Perspective” [eCAM Advance Access published online on May 14, 2008].

Submitted 8th July 2008, online 11th July 2008

BPSDBAlex Hankey (1) has written to support and defend Lionel Milgrom (2,3), but does so in his own terms of “quantum fluctuation fields” in biological systems (4) rather than Milgrom's model (often referred to as a metaphor (5)) of patient-practitioner-remedy entanglement (6) via “weak” quantum theory (7). Quantum fluctuation fields are supposed to demonstrate quantum coherence on a macroscopic scale, but the reasoning behind this is flawed; in any case, a link between these two models is not to be taken for granted (8,9).

Read more...Collapse )

shpalman [userpic]

Weak quantum theory and quantum critical point fluctuations...

8th July 2008 (17:27)

... do not in fact have anything to do with each other

BPSDBWhile writing my eLetter regarding Alex Hankey's (1) support and defence of Lionel Milgrom (2), I took a look at a short letter written by Hankey entitled “Weak Quantum Theory: Satisfied by Quantized Critical Point Fluctuations” (3). Only the first page is freely available, but I’m assuming his reference to Walach is Ref. (4) and the reference to weak quantum theory is Atmanspacher et al. (5).

Read more...Collapse )

shpalman [userpic]

The futility of transcendental speculations

9th May 2008 (19:15)

BPSDBLionel Milgrom's latest paper, “A New Geometrical Description of Entanglement and the Curative Homeopathic Process” [1], as introduced by Alex Hankey (“Self-Consistent Theories of Health and Healing” [2]) quotes Hahnemann saying that

“The unprejudiced observer is well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience.”

Milgrom's futile transcendental speculations have been going on for six years. This latest paper is light on equations but heavy on pictures and mysticism and further from science (and indeed reality) than ever. But it's still possible to find some things which are meaningful enough to be wrong.Read more...Collapse )

< back | 0 - 10 |