The homeopathy explained metaphorically for Dummies

[Janic]

always as bad in reasoning. Not all people who have worked in coal mines have had silicosis, it is even possible that coal dust protects from silicosis. Same thing for asbestos and therefore for pesticides.

Do you think my reasoning is valid, and if you think it is not, why, and how should you reason correctly?

I just take the example of glyphosate because we are discussing it on another thread, but the question here is not so much that of glyphosate as that of the right method to follow to highlight an effect. I could just as easily have taken the example of silicosis or asbestos. So the question is the same: what is the right method for you; to demonstrate that coal or asbestos causes disease? how do you go about proving it?

It is however obvious, the link between the number of patients and their living environment. The affected miners did not see the rest of their family affected and their black soot sputum did not exist as much in this same family. So the link between professional activity and pathology became obvious, without having studied medicine, or having put any method in place.

(in case you did not perceive it, I would point out to you all the same that my reasoning on glyphosate was to be taken in the second degree, but I note in passing that you consider that to reason on what we observe just around self, it is for you a "null reasoning").

On the contrary, I found your example interesting because as for coal or asbestos or DDT and others, it is the observation of the affected environments which is authentic. The countries where this product has been used in mass, without protection, have demonstrated its direct and incontestable harmfulness, except by the manufacturers themselves. Don't touch business!

[ABC2019]

On the contrary, I found your example interesting because as for coal or asbestos or DDT and others, it is the observation of the affected environments which is authentic. The countries where this product has been used in mass, without protection, have demonstrated its direct and incontestable harmfulness, except by the manufacturers themselves. Don't touch business!

you totally avoid the question, which was: how was it "demonstrated", precisely, by what method, which seems convincing to you? it's not that easy to "demonstrate" it, to come to the conclusion that it is "incontestable" !!!

For all the people you spend your time insulting on this thread, these are obviously exactly the same methods that are used to "demonstrate" the influence of charcoal or asbestos, which give very little significant results on glyphosate. , and insignificant results on H; ie statistical methods applied to large samples to demonstrate correlations, or the absence of correlations.

Unless you have references that prove otherwise.

[Janic]

by ABC2019 "19/02/20, 11:50

janic wrote: On the contrary, I found your example interesting because as for coal or asbestos or DDT and others, it is the observation of affected environments that is authentic. The countries where this product has been used in mass, without protection, have demonstrated its direct and incontestable harmfulness, except by the manufacturers themselves. Don't touch business!

you totally avoid the question, which was: how was it "demonstrated", precisely, by what method, which seems convincing to you? it's not that easy to "demonstrate" it, to come to the conclusion that it is "incontestable" !!!

It's simple again. If a person strikes a hammer on a finger and tries it 100, 1000 times, it will give the same result. But a sage will avoid trying to start again the first time, even the second time, unless you are maso. No need for a method, it's demonstrable and indisputable, even without a method or medical protocol.

For all the people you spend your time insulting on this thread,

I'm just sending his own insults back to the sender, check it out!

it is obviously exactly the same methods which are used to "demonstrate" the influence of coal or asbestos, which give very little significant results on glyphosate, and insignificant results on H XNUMX.

re-re-re-belotte!
If you believe that in sport, the methods of javelin throwing are applicable to football or swimming, this will have no value. So only the specialties concerned have their own methods and results, not the other specialties. So the A has no competence to judge the value of another medical specialty according to their own method.

i.e. statistical methods applied to large samples to show correlations, or the absence of correlations

Except that you wait a long time, a long time, the time to have many cases to put on pieces of paper, quietly sitting cuddly in a comfortable armchair in front of your computer, while hundreds, thousands are poisoned, on the ground , suffer and die from their situation, to allow you to play with numbers.

Unless you have references that prove otherwise.

References and evidence can be found in the field, in concrete reality. Put on boots and get your hands dirty in their daily shit.

[ABC2019]

It's simple again. If a person strikes a hammer on a finger and tries it 100, 1000 times, it will give the same result. But a sage will avoid trying to start again the first time, even the second time, unless you are maso. No need for a method, it's demonstrable and indisputable, even without a method or medical protocol.

it's very simple when the correlation is 100%, I also took the example of sunburn.

But it is much less simple when it concerns very low probabilities, which only be increased by another factor. You said it yourself that it sucked to say that coal had no effect on the pretext that we knew someone who worked in a mine and who had not had silicosis!

Likewise, for example, you can see that most of the time, when you get in your car, nothing happens.

Or when you drink a glass of alcohol, or smoke a cigarette, nothing bad happens.

When you go to work in a mine, or spend a day working with asbestos, nothing happens either.

Etc, etc. the examples are innumerable.

So in these cases, how do you know if it has an effect or not, without going through statistical studies? I personally do not know how to do otherwise, but if you have a different method, it's interesting.

Note that the different examples are very different from each other, but that the question is always the same: does a factor A influence B, or not? It is just a question of establishing whether A cause B, I do not see how the method could differ depending on the nature of A or B, the question is always resolved in the same way it seems to me right?

The rest of your speech has nothing to do with the question I ask, which did not concern the H or the A, so don't bother answering it.

[Janic]

ABC2019 »19/02/20, 14:44

janic wrote: It's very simple again. If a person strikes a hammer on a finger and tries it 100, 1000 times, it will give the same result. But a sage will avoid trying to start again the first time, even the second time, unless you are maso. No need for a method, it's demonstrable and indisputable, even without a method or medical protocol.

it's very simple when the correlation is 100%, I also took the example of sunburn.
But it is much less simple when it concerns very low probabilities, which only be increased by another factor. You said it yourself that it sucked to say that coal had no effect on the pretext that we knew someone who worked in a mine and who had not had silicosis!

Except that it is a circumcised world with a single visible, observable, incontestable professional aspect.

Likewise, for example, you can see that most of the time, when you get in your car, nothing happens.

Bad example, the car is not alive!

Or when you drink a glass of alcohol, or smoke a cigarette, nothing happens serious.

Not nothing!

When you go to work in a mine, or spend a day working with asbestos, nothing happens either.

visible only immediately, it is likely that you will cough to evacuate what you have breathed. Silica as asbestos penetrates the organism in the same quantity as a professional, there is no accumulation simply as the family of the minor does not breathe as much dust as their husband and father and are not, or less , affected as the minor.

Etc, etc. the examples are innumerable.

Precisely and that is what comes into play TA science which, from these different cases, seeks what produces them. Such will have a different way of life from his colleagues, will have a better resistance to aggression, according to his age, etc… but these statistics, useful, only interveneAPRES to have noted the facts and not by inventing "facts" which would more or less stick to the reality on the ground.
Now drinking a single glass of alcohol has the same effects as drinking a liter or two on the body, but it is only to a greater degree than its destructive effect notice. Whether you shoot a person with a single bullet or a machine gun burst, the result is the same: destroy a body or parts thereof. Similarly we can die from a small or large dose of peanut for people allergic to these products, but in any case, the person responsible is quickly identified by relatives, without protocols or science.
So for asbestos, for example, the employees quickly realized that their discomfort was caused by this product, but it took 100 years health authorities, so that it is finally recognized as such and even more.
If each time it takes a century to decide the harmfulness of a product ?! it will certainly help limit the population explosion.

So in these cases, how do you know if it has an effect or not, without going through statistical studies? I personally do not know how to do otherwise, but if you have a different method, it's interesting.

The method is indicated above: observe what is happening in the field, in real life, not behind a desk or lab flasks. Find immediate practical solutions (wear masks for example) while waiting for these gentlemen, in white coats, to discuss with each other to know if it is serious or not and during this time people suffer and die. But they do not care, it is not them or their families who are affected!

Note that the different examples are very different from each other, but that the question is always the same: does a factor A influence B, or not? It is just a question of establishing whether A cause B, I do not see how the method could differ depending on the nature of A or B, the question is always resolved in the same way it seems to me right?

Nothing to do with the train that leaves from station A to station B of my childhood. The only thing that matters is: do patients get better regardless of treatment A, H or tartempion, after (even if it was a placebo, which is not the case in H, precisely); because the consolation that such medicine has done for the best according to its protocols, the family of the deceased does not care, the only thing that matters is that they trusted and that it was deceived, just to defend a monopoly industrial.

The rest of your speech has nothing to do with the question I ask, which did not concern the H or the A, so don't bother answering it.

And I don't answer it since the subject is on H versus A, not on the rest.

[ABC2019]

ABC2019 »19/02/20, 14:44

janic wrote: It's very simple again. If a person strikes a hammer on a finger and tries it 100, 1000 times, it will give the same result. But a sage will avoid trying to start again the first time, even the second time, unless you are maso. No need for a method, it's demonstrable and indisputable, even without a method or medical protocol.

it's very simple when the correlation is 100%, I also took the example of sunburn.
But it is much less simple when it concerns very low probabilities, which only be increased by another factor. You said it yourself that it sucked to say that coal had no effect on the pretext that we knew someone who worked in a mine and who had not had silicosis!

Except that it is a circumcised world with a single visible, observable, incontestable professional aspect.

Likewise, for example, you can see that most of the time, when you get in your car, nothing happens.

Bad example, the car is not alive!

but it has nothing to do with the characteristics of what you are studying! I took examples from the living, but you can take many other examples without living, you might as well ask yourself the question of knowing if the Sun melts the ice, or if it snows more often in winter than in summer, there is nothing alive in it! I'm talking to you about establishing a causal link between cause A and consequence B whatever cause A and consequence B

Or when you drink a glass of alcohol, or smoke a cigarette, nothing happens serious.

Not nothing!

Obviously things are happening, there is smoke coming out of your mouth, but I mean that you are not showing that tobacco promotes lung cancer with a single cigarette or even with a single smoker! !!

So do you know any other method to highlight this kind of causality, than doing statistical studies on a fairly large population, yes or no?

and if not, which one?

[Janic]

by ABC2019 "19/02/20, 17:31

but it has nothing to do with the characteristics of what you are studying!

and what am i studying?

Or when you drink a glass of alcohol, or smoke a cigarette, it doesn't happen nothing serious.

Not nothing!

Obviously things are happening, there is smoke coming out of your mouth, but I mean that you are not showing that tobacco promotes lung cancer with a single cigarette or even with a single smoker! !!

it's not just lung cancer that is caused by tobacco or alcohol! It is not a single isolated element that counts, but also the context in which this element occurs. The last element intervenes only as a trigger like a small spark (cause) can set fire to a forest (effect) if it is in the conditions of ignition. (notion of land)

so do you know any other method of highlighting this kind of causality, than doing statistical studies on a fairly large population , Yes or no ?

Yes et no !
Yes ! But after, well after, that the conditions are met for a sufficiently long time (for example one can only know the reality on vaccines with statistics established over successive decades) but one can also perceive it in the minutes which follow an injection on one or more people. Before all statistics and without prior protocol.

and if not, which

No ! if the method chosen to establish these statistics in question does not relate to the right criteria. This is why the H which cannot and cannot be established on the methods of A and to understand this, it is necessary to study closely, what distinguishes the two means of care and healing, BEFORE to draw hasty and false conclusions.
This is what the A who have not studied this subject do and therefore the "influencers" who take their ignorance for knowledge.

[ABC2019]

[Quote = Janic]
Yes et no !
Yes ! But after, well after, that the conditions are met for a sufficiently long time (for example one can only know the reality on vaccines with statistics established over successive decades) but one can also perceive it in the minutes which follow an injection on one or more people.
[/ Quote]
Well it must only be 3 times that I say it, but as everyone understood that you were hard to understand I repeat it a fourth time: yes of course Janic there are cases where the effect is so immediate and the correlation so good that there is no doubt, for example when you get a sunburn or a blow on the head that knocks you out. There you don't need statistical studies. The question I'm asking you is when we haven't to immediate effect: for example for glyphosate I guess you have never seen anyone go round up and paf an hour after catching lymphoma !! So in these cases, what method do you suggest to know if glyphosate has an effect or not?

[pedrodelavega]

A controlled test! For example:
We follow 10 homeopaths for 1 year. We replace half of their prescription with placebos and the prescriber capitalizes the data. At the end, the healing rates of the 2 groups are compared.

Controlled by whom? On what criteria?

By homeopaths if that suits you. The criteria are the cure rate.

Or rather this: We follow 10 homeopaths ET 10 allopaths for 1 year on the same patients. We replace half of their prescription with placebos and the prescriber capitalizes the data. At the end, the healing rates of the 2 groups are compared.
Well done, it's better balanced!

It's your dualistic approach that stands out, but yes, it works too.

Another example: We select 2000 parents with 2 children, we follow them for 2 years.
We divide into 2 groups. One group of 1000 is given arnica, the other a placebo (refilled if necessary). Parents don't know which one they have

Same thing, you want it to happen according to TES criteria not according to justice.

Justice has nothing to do with it at this point. Except in cases of abuse, such as:
https://www.boursorama.com/actualite-ec ... ecf69a9515

Your example is like:
We select 2000 parents with 2 children, we follow them for 2 years.
We divide into 2 groups. To a group of 1000, we give a chemical drugto the other a placebo (we refill if necessary ). Parents don't know which one they have.
Any doctor, would refuse to give a toxic drug to children (that was under Nazism) to check if possibly, or case where, may be that, in case of, pathology it would cure them.

This is how all clinical trials for any new drug go.

However, doctors do not have the right to give placebos instead of a real treatment, it is the law!

They have the right within the framework of a supervised and validated clinical trial.

Each time a parent is faced with a hematoma situation (*), he gives the granules and records the effects (such as size of the hematoma, duration, absorption). At the end, we compare the results of the 2 groups.
(4000 children over 2 years, there are a good number of them, if not enough, we extend)

Always illegal! without consent enlightened parents.

There is necessarily informed consent:
https://www.inserm.fr/recherche-inserm/ ... i-clinique

Why not consult H and take into consideration THEIR own way of doing things?

It must be done obviously.

He just judges the efficiency, the cure rate; You don't have to be a homeopath for that. The criterion is whether or not it heals, has an effect or there is no effect.

Do you want to laugh?

No it is. It is only a matter of measuring the cure rate.
https://aurore.unilim.fr/theses/nxfile/ ... 113117.pdf

[Janic]

by ABC2019 "19/02/20, 17:31

The question I ask you is when there is no immediate effect: for example for glyphosate I suppose that you have never seen anyone go round up and paf an hour after catching lymphoma !! So in these cases, what method do you suggest to know if glyphosate has an effect or not?

I shouldn't ask the question about glyphosate, nor about the navy or aviation, it's not my job. So it's up to the specialists self-employed to give their opinion.
We consumers are reduced to being attentive to what is happening, first with the first users and first victims, long before TA science mixes its grain of salt. Science often claimed to be only at the service of industrialists because their business depends on it. So with the hindsight that we have on TOUS the chemicals that humans invented, all have been shown to be harmful in the short, medium or long term and glyphosate is only one among all the others. The fact that DES Scientists study the subject and discover, with astonishment, that this product with hidden effects, unsuspected during the tests, only confirms, and not discover, that these chemicals are not favorable for the living.


@ pedro

janic wrote: Or rather this: We follow 10 homeopaths AND 10 allopaths for 1 year on the same patients. We replace half of their prescription with placebos and the prescriber capitalizes the data. At the end, the healing rates of the 2 groups are compared.
Well done, it's better balanced! [

It's your dualistic approach that stands out, but yes, it works too.

Not only does it work, but it no longer puts H versus placebo in competition, but H versus A after placebo. But BP does not want to risk it because their speech is about placebo only, according to THEIR allopathic type protocols only: therefore not valid !.

Another example: We select 2000 parents with 2 children, we follow them for 2 years.
We divide into 2 groups. One group of 1000 is given arnica, the other a placebo (refilled if necessary). Parents don't know which one they have

Same thing, you want it to happen according to YOUR criteria, not according to justice.

Justice has nothing to do with it at this stage.

On the contrary, justice comes from the word Fair which means fair, balanced, or the methods thatneeded A forces the scales to tilt to their sole advantage and without possible dispute. We find here the dominant religious mode of yesterday on minorities forced to remain silent.

Except in cases of abuse, such as:
https://www.boursorama.com/actualite-ec ... ecf69a9515

Ouarf! This is not a trial on efficiency or not of his product, but on walking out of the nails. It does not determine whether it is effective, but just that we should not step on broken BP and their de facto monopoly.

janic wrote: Any doctor, would refuse to give a toxic drug to children (that was under Nazism) to check if possibly, or if, maybe it would be good if, in case of pathology, it would cure them .

This is how all clinical trials for any new drug go.

Yes, that's also how Mengele and his cronies (the best scientists of his time) acted. So there are two weights, two measurements in science? But after these tests, the general public acts as a guinea pig, without informed consent.

janic wrote: Now doctors don't have the right to give placebos instead of real treatment, it's the law!

They have the right within the framework of a supervised and validated clinical trial.

Only and on volunteers paid for that, with unemployed people, students who want to make some money and only on non sick people and who have no recourse in case of misfortune. Mengele would have dreamed of it! I'm talking about the tests on guinea pigs that are the general public, once again!

Each time a parent is faced with a hematoma situation (*), he gives the granules and records the effects (such as size of the hematoma, duration, absorption). At the end, we compare the results of the 2 groups.
(4000 children over 2 years, there are a good number of them, if not enough, we extend)

janic wrote: Always illegal! without informed parental consent.

There is necessarily informed consent:
https://www.inserm.fr/recherche-inserm/ ... i-clinic

My eye!
It is not an informed consent on the product, but on the progress of the tests. Then when this product is released in phase IV, there is no longer informed consent and all patients then serve as unenlightened guinea pigs on the product. Indeed, there are few doctors who read the side effects of all the drugs they will give, and who warn of the risks involved, because they fear that they will refuse them. Having no choice between dangerous drugs and staying sick, since they are dissuaded from using other therapies, this is called psychological stress.

Janic wrote or why not consult the H and take into consideration THEIR own way of doing things?

It must be done obviously.

Go tell them, the H's are just waiting for that! According to THEIR criteria only.

He just judges the efficiency, the cure rate; You don't have to be a homeopath for that. The criterion is whether or not it heals, has an effect or there is no effect.

janic wrote: You wanna laugh? When there is healing they, your friends, call it the placebo effect, except for THEIR healings.

No it is. It is only a matter of measuring the cure rate.
https://aurore.unilim.fr/theses/nxfile/ ... 113117.pdf

You always want to laugh! The cure rate observed by the attending physician: yes!, Not by a thesis student on rejects coming from the A with criteria not valid in H. We are still going around in circles. She passes an allopath examination, not a homeopath, their hated adversary.
Always the same thing one cannot compare aviation and marine, no more than high jump and swimming! but you refuse to admit it!