Homeopathy: Effective questioning the US

[pedrodelavega]

As a reminder, the State imposes a non-toxicity of pharmaceutical products, but does not control the processes put in place and does not control any of the clinical trials performed

https://www.ligue-cancer.net/article/37 ... -cliniques
http://www.ouest-france.fr/sante/essais ... es-4099595

This type of experience does not demonstrate anything. It is, once again, like the A who wants to control the H according to SES criteria which are on the one hand unsuitable (recognized by the State) and on the other hand analyzed by incompetents.
What counts, again and again, it is in the field, in real life, that the effectiveness of this method, or another for that matter, can be measured.

In the cited experiment, all the parties agreed on the protocol and neither disputed it:
http://www.zetetique.fr/divers/Experien ... etisme.pdf

The disc is still broken and turns in a loop. The so-called scientific experiments in question are unsuitable for the subjects in question, and therefore do not prove anything except their incompetence, any more than marine experiments are suitable for aviation. It is for millennia that dowsers have demonstrated their effectiveness in the field and it far exceeds your "scientific" laboratory experiences.

The best proof of the reality of the phenomenon would be the prosperity of the dowsers. In this case the prosperity of clairvoyants or astrologers would be "proof" of the effectiveness of their practices!

In this case, the experiments carried out are experiments in the field and not in labs, and the dowsers took part in it (there was even a gain to the key for those who succeeded in certain experiments):
http://fr.sci.zetetique.narkive.com/Qjh ... -de-munich

[Janic]

Janic wrote our reminder the State imposes a non-toxicity of pharmaceutical products, but does not control the processes put in place and does not control any of the clinical trials carried out

https://www.ligue-cancer.net/article/37 ... -clinics
http://www.ouest-france.fr/sante/essais ... Are 4099595

It just indicates that the state is running high administratively testing, but does not participate in it through its officials. For drugs (any medical authority will confirm this) it is the pharmaceutical industry which develops a product, which determines the benefit / risk ratio, not the State which only records the results, on documents , tests carried out by the laboratories, (judge and party) not by its officials.
It's not embarrassing in itself when the whole industry, not just the drug, works this way. But where that poses problem is when the State imposes a medication (like the vaccines) and therefore becomes responsible for it, but so far does not control it by redoing, under its sole responsibility, all the tests . [*]
For example by checking the efficiency of car seat belts and their resistance to crash tests.
The advantage of H is that there is no longer a benefit / risk ratio since there is no identified risk, hence its special status.

janic wrote: This type of experience does not demonstrate anything. It is, once again, like the A who wants to control the H according to HIS criteria which are on the one hand unsuitable (recognized by the State) and on the other hand analyzed by incompetents.
What counts, again and again, it is in the field, in real life, that the effectiveness of this method, or another for that matter, can be measured.

In the cited experiment, all the parties agreed on the protocol and neither disputed it:

http://www.zetetique.fr/divers/Experien ... etism.pdf
As a ridiculous test, it succeeds! It is like testing conventional medical efficacy with a single doctor, the results would not be much different.
Final results: Validated tests: 98 Number of successful trials: 55 Number of failed attempts: 43
The result of the experiment is not statistically significant: it is a failure.
As I said earlier, the failures of conventional cancer medicine are worse, therefore: The result of the experiment is not statistically significant: it is a failure. "! We see where this kind of discourse leads.

janic wrote: The disc is still broken and spinning. The so-called scientific experiments in question are unsuitable for the subjects in question, and therefore do not prove anything except their incompetence, any more than marine experiments are suitable for aviation. It is for millennia that dowsers have demonstrated their effectiveness in the field and it far exceeds your "scientific" laboratory experiences.

The best proof of the reality of the phenomenon would be the prosperity of the dowsers. In this case the prosperity of clairvoyants or astrologers would be "proof" of the effectiveness of their practices!

This is the typical phony argument. The dowsers are, most of the time, not professionals and intervene only on solicitation by word of mouth, so we cannot speak of CURRENT prosperity which was not the case before an industry took hold of the sector with a high cost.
http://wikiwater.fr/e9-les-methodes-tra ... es-et.html

In this case, the experiments carried out are experiments in the field and not in labs, and the dowsers took part in it (there was even a gain to the key for those who succeeded in certain experiments):

http://fr.sci.zetetique.narkive.com/Qjh ... -of munich
the simple tone of the article shows the bias of its author (considering the site in question) These kinds of experiments in which these "dowsers" participate (but which ones? Recognized or not by the community of dowsers?) is a vast joke which resembles, to be mistaken, experiments on homeopathy. If it exceeds 50% it is considered a coincidence, a possible cheating, a failure as above (while a drug receives its MA if the advantage (as small as it is) exceeds its disadvantages.) Inconsistency of the human mind or simply business.

[*] Vaccines are insufficiently evaluated
1) Pharmacokinetics
2) No carcinogenesis, mutagenesis or genotoxicity studies
3) No placebo effect
4) pharmacovigilance
5) Other disadvantages for public health
health-pollution-prevention / vaccinations-and-for-health-or-against-t11411-530.html

[Janic]

an example of a dowser's success rate (percentage and probability)

Here are my figures for the year (from November 2009 to November 2010).
14 wells were dug following my surveys.
Unfortunately one of them was dry .... (see my article on veins that no longer flow).

The results :
Number of boreholes (or wells): 14
Number of wells with water: 13, i.e. 92%
Number of dry wells (without water): 1 or 7%
Number of wells whose water was found at the announced depth to within 2 meters: 10, i.e. 71%
Number of wells whose water was found with a depth difference of between 3 and 5 meters: 3, i.e. 23%

For information, average depth of water appearance: 12,5 meters (minimum: 5 meters; maximum 40 meters)

to compare with
Performance and costs
The indicated drilling success rates are generally high (70 to 85%). The post-construction failure rates are not known with certainty, but in other countries the 30% rate is often cited. In reality, it may often be higher. Dry wells and post-construction failures have an overall impact on drilling costs nationwide. A high failure rate significantly increases the unit cost of productive wells
https://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files ... enchAF.pdf

the appreciable difference is due to the fact that the dowsers detect above all at shallow depth unlike modern techniques which detect at great depth.
End of off topic.

[pedrodelavega]

It just indicates that the state is running high administratively testing, but does not participate in it through its officials. For drugs (any medical authority will confirm this) it is the pharmaceutical industry which develops a product, which determines the benefit / risk ratio, not the State which only records the results, on documents , tests carried out by the laboratories, (judge and party) not by its officials.

It's not described like that in the links I posted.

The advantage of H is that there is no longer a benefit / risk ratio since there is no identified risk, hence its special status.

http://www.psychomedia.qc.ca/sante/2017 ... -belladone

Final results: Validated tests: 98 Number of successful trials: 55 Number of failed attempts: 43
The result of the experiment is not statistically significant: it is a failure.

That means that on a test with 2 possible solutions, he is almost wrong every other time (1 chance 2, anyone would have done the same).

In this case, the experiments carried out are experiments in the field and not in labs, and the dowsers took part in it (there was even a gain to the key for those who succeeded in certain experiments):

These kinds of experiments in which these "dowsers" participate (but which ones? Recognized or not by the community of dowsers?) Is a vast joke which resembles, to be mistaken, experiments on homeopathy.

However, the measurement of results in this area is factual / objective and there are many controlled experiences.
And, for example, in the Munich experience, "The organizers believed in the authenticity of the dowsers' abilities, and they went out of their way to prove it"
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourcier

Here are my figures for the year (from November 2009 to November 2010).
14 wells were dug following my surveys.
Unfortunately one of them was dry .... (see my article on veins that no longer flow).
The results :
Number of boreholes (or wells): 14
Number of wells with water: 13, i.e. 92%
Number of dry wells (without water): 1 or 7%
Number of wells whose water was found at the announced depth to within 2 meters: 10, i.e. 71%
Number of wells whose water was found with a depth difference of between 3 and 5 meters: 3, i.e. 23%
For information, average depth of water appearance: 12,5 meters (minimum: 5 meters; maximum 40 meters)

Why would this unsupervised experience (which is in fact only a testimony) have more credit than the experiences cited above?

[Janic]

janic wrote: It only indicates that the state oversees the tests administratively, but does not participate by its officials. For medicines (any medical authority will confirm this) it is the pharmaceutical industry which develops a product, which determines the benefit / risk ratio, not the State which only records the results, on documents , tests carried out by the laboratories, (judge and party) not by its officials.

It's not described like that in the links I posted.

It is not your links that count, but state laws, so official links that I indicated much earlier

janic wrote: The advantage of H is that there is no longer a benefit / risk ratio since there is no identified risk, hence its special status.

http://www.psychomedia.qc.ca/sante/2017 ... -belladonna

Another article that highlights the ignorance of their editors and which has already been seen. Homeopathic medicine does not contain THAT et ONLY THAT Inspiring diluted out of all toxicity. This article you are quoting is not about a homeopathic product, but a product that contains homeopathic products, which is fundamentally different. Hence the demand, justified (basically not in the form of the FTC) that labeling by the FDA be more precise and avoid this kind of confusion and therefore of accident.

janic wrote: Final results: Validated trials: 98 Number of successful trials: 55 Number of failed trials: 43

The result of the experiment is not statistically significant: it is a failure.
That means that on a test with 2 possible solutions, he is almost wrong every other time (1 chance 2, anyone would have done the same).

Exactly like cancer treatment which has the same failure rate in " wrong therapy »1 in XNUMX times.

janic wrote: In this case, the experiments carried out are experiments in the field and not in labs, and the dowsers took part in it (there was even a gain in the key for those who succeeded in certain experiments) :

These kinds of experiments in which these "dowsers" participate (but which ones? Recognized or not by the community of dowsers?) Is a vast joke which resembles, to be mistaken, experiments on homeopathy.

However, the measurement of the result, in this area, is factual / objective and the controlled experiences are numerous.
And, for example, in the Munich experience, "The organizers believed in the authenticity of the dowsers' abilities, and they did everything to prove it."

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourcier

Tickle me so that I laugh. It is not a question of whether the organizers believe that or not. It is as if you were citing allopaths (not users and prescribers of H) " believing in the authenticity of the capabilities of the H and they have done everything to prove it (Sic) and discovering that it doesn't work. This point has been widely seen in the previous pages.

Why would this unsupervised experience (which is in fact only a testimony) have more credit than the experiences cited above?

No more no less ! It's just a comparison of results!
But users of dowsers do not rely on phony Munich-type experiences, but on word of mouth.
So on one side of the organizers who do not know the subject and its modes and on the other a practitioner (among all the others) who obtains results not comparable to your sources. The question is : who the possible user will believe and therefore verify on the spot ?
As for the H moreover!
Finally and especially: we are in France, not in the USA and the law requires a minimum dilution of 1 / 10.000 thus avoiding any risk of intoxication and accidents.

[pedrodelavega]

Hence the demand, justified (basically not in the form of the FTC) that labeling by the FDA be more precise and avoid this kind of confusion and therefore of accident.

The labeling of this homeopathic medicine was consistent, there was no confusion, just a manufacturing defect due to lack of control: The problem came from the "variable amount of belladonna, a toxic substance, in some homeopathic teething tablets , sometimes far exceeding the amount stated on the label. "
http://www.psychomedia.qc.ca/sante/2017 ... -belladone

Exactly like cancer treatment which has the same failure rate in " wrong therapy »1 in XNUMX times.

Unconnected.

Tickle me so that I laugh. It is not a question of whether the organizers believe that or not.

It can possibly cut short any classic argument of the conflict of interest / bias type.

Why would this unsupervised experience (which is in fact only a testimony) have more credit than the experiences cited above?

No more no less ! It's just a comparison of results!

You who often speak of "judge and party", in the example you cite, how are the results validated and by whom?

But users of dowsers do not rely on phony Munich-type experiences, but on word of mouth.

Users of "clairvoyance" do not rely on scientific experiments either, but on word of mouth ...
Would "word of mouth" be more reliable proof than reproducible and controlled methodical experiments?

So on one side of the organizers who do not know the subject and its modes and on the other a practitioner (among all the others) who obtains results not comparable to your sources.

This is your interpretation.
In fact, we have on one side of the organizers, who believing in the authenticity of the capacities of the dowsers (nothing says that they did not know the subject), have done everything to prove it by calling on real dowsers in controlled experiments. And on the other, the uncontrolled testimony of a dowser who alone advances his results.

The question is : who the possible user will believe and therefore verify on the spot ?
As for the H moreover!

It depends on the gullibility of the person and their level of information.

[Janic]

janic wrote: Hence the justified request (basically not in the form of the FTC) that labeling by the FDA be more precise and avoid this kind of confusion and therefore of accident.

The labeling of this homeopathic medicine was consistent, there was no confusion, just a manufacturing defect due to lack of control: The problem came from the "variable amount of belladonna, a toxic substance, in some homeopathic teething tablets , sometimes far exceeding the amount stated on the label. "

http://www.psychomedia.qc.ca/sante/2017 ... -belladonna
If this is the case, this is due to the responsibility of the manufacturer who has not sufficiently controlled his products and this is clear from the American justice system and not from the surrender of the H itself. [*] This kind of blunder also exists with us when it comes to A drugs.

janic wrote: Exactly like treating cancer that has the same failure rate by "mistaking therapy" 1 in XNUMX times.

Unconnected.

Tickle me so that I laugh. It is not a question of whether the organizers believe that or not.

It can possibly cut short any classic argument of the conflict of interest / bias type.

Nothing at all ! you indicate a value judgment on the validity of a rate however higher than 50%, I only emphasize, by this parallelism, that it exists in other "statistical" sectors as for cancer… among others.
An oncologist interviewed on TV indicates that cancers will progress by 70% in the coming years and that the successes will be between 40/60% depending on the progress of the tumors.

Janic wrote:

Why would this unsupervised experience (which is in fact only a testimony) have more credit than the experiences cited above?

No more no less ! It's just a comparison of results!

You who often speak of "judge and party", in the example you cite, how are the results validated and by whom?

By the customers themselves! If the dowser has indeed found a source in a specific place and not at random, it is word of mouth that will credit this dowser, with future clients, according to his success rate during his career in this field. And it is valid for all good dowsers because a bad reputation is faster to make than a good reputation.

Would "word of mouth" be more reliable proof than reproducible and controlled methodical experiments?

No more reliable, but more realistic than what is happening in real life.

Janic wrote on one side of the organizers who do not know the subject and its modes and on the other a practitioner (among all the others) who obtains results not comparable to your sources.

This is your interpretation.

As everyone can do, it is a question of personal sensitivity valid for all.

In fact, we have on one side of the organizers, who believing in the authenticity of the capacities of the dowsers (nothing says that they did not know the subject), have done everything to prove it by calling on real dowsers in controlled experiments.

The very fact of this kind of experience shows that the subject is unknown to them. This is exactly the case for the experiments carried out by A concerning H. : It is completely off the plate. Find out more from the professionals concerned !

And on the other, the uncontrolled testimony of a dowser who alone advances his results.

If you read carefully, I wrote "among others" these can be indicated to you by their associations or union
http://www.snradiesthesistes.fr/ (see lists on the internet)

janic wrote: The question is: who is the possible user going to believe and therefore will check on the spot?
As for the H moreover!

It depends on the person's gullibility

Quite still! We are all there, everyone believes what he wants especially when the information comes from people who are credible in their eyes and confirmed by experience, lived in real life.

and its level of information.

It all depends on the type of information.
For example between that of the journalists on the consideration that the American FTC can have on the subject and that of India for example: Who is more or less right and therefore who to believe?
The development of interest in H by the populations shows which side the balance tilts.

[*] I do not remember having read the minimum dilution imposed, as in France, for America !!!

[pedrodelavega]

If this is the case, this is due to the responsibility of the manufacturer who has not sufficiently controlled his products and this is clear from the American justice system and not from the surrender of the H itself. [*] This kind of blunder also exists with us when it comes to A drugs.

Quite this kind of blunder does not call a whole system into question.

Nothing at all ! you indicate a value judgment on the validity of a rate yet greater than 50%,

Example: If I tell you that I can detect with a pendulum a pebble hidden randomly in the hollow of one of your 2 hands but that by experimenting 100 times, I am wrong about half of the time (50% of success and failure on a test with 2 possibilities ). To find out if I really have a gift, are you going to base yourself on my initial assertion or on the result of the experience?

Would "word of mouth" be more reliable proof than reproducible and controlled methodical experiments?

No more reliable, but more realistic than what is happening in real life.

But of course....

The very fact of this kind of experience shows that the subject is unknown to them. This is exactly the case for the experiments carried out by A concerning H. : It is completely off the plate.

Yet it is an easily verifiable and measurable phenomenon.

Find out more from the professionals concerned !

Just as I will turn to the only "clairvoyants" to know if the "clairvoyance" really works.

For example between that of the journalists on the consideration that the American FTC can have on the subject and that of India for example: Who is more or less right and therefore who to believe?
The development of interest in H by the populations shows which side the balance tilts.

Would the popularity of a practice be scientific proof?

[Janic]

janic wrote: If this is the case, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer who has not sufficiently controlled his products and this is clear from the American justice system and not from the remission of the question itself. [*] This kind of blunder also exists with us when it comes to A drugs.

Quite this kind of blunder does not call a whole system into question.

We agree on this point… at least! So it does not call into question H.

janic wrote: Nothing at all! you indicate a value judgment on the validity of a rate yet greater than 50%,

Example: If I tell you that I can detect with a pendulum a pebble hidden randomly in the hollow of one of your 2 hands but that by experimenting 100 times, I am wrong about half of the time (50% of success and failure on a test with 2 possibilities). To find out if I really have a gift, are you going to base yourself on my initial assertion or on the result of the experience?

This emphasizes, once again that you are talking about a subject that you completely ignore because you only retain an average success rate rather than a high success rate. But it's your right! but in the same experiment, if this gives 72% of positive results, it is the experiment repeated over a large number which will have final value. Hence my advice to contact organizations representative of the subject, more able to answer you ... unless you prefer to know nothing!

Janic wrote:
Would "word of mouth" be more reliable proof than reproducible and controlled methodical experiments?

No more reliable, but more realistic than what is happening in real life.

But of course....

Obviously. If tens of thousands of doctors and millions of patients use it, it is that it is the second option that has value in their eyes.

janic wrote: The very fact of this kind of experience shows that the subject is unknown to them. This is exactly the case for the experiments carried out by A concerning H. : It is completely off the plate.

Yet it is an easily verifiable and measurable phenomenon.

Indeed, as many as possible, in real life, by competent people.

janic wrote: Find out more from the professionals concerned!

Just as I will turn to the only "clairvoyants" to know if the "clairvoyance" really works.

Difficult to do otherwise! If you want information on the operation of your car, you will go to a mechanic (not a plumber) who can detect a subsequent breakdown, or not get there, and another will succeed because he has more experience, knowledge, than the first, it is valid for all sectors where humans are concerned. Now if the person you have contacted informs you about something that no one other than you can know, it will be up to you to decide whether to believe it or not; but after, not before according to a cultural a priori.
It is valid for all things, we have this freedom of choice, belief and practice, whatever the views of others.

janic wrote: For example between that of the journalists on the consideration that the FTC can have on the subject and that of India for example: Who is more or less right and therefore who to believe?

The development of interest in H by the populations shows which side the balance tilts.

Would the popularity of a practice be scientific proof?

It's really obsessive! You have been told over and over again that the general public disregards evidence (supposedly scientific) even though the scientists in question have failed to resolve their health problem. It is therefore their satisfaction to get better with non-conventional medicines that determines their final choice and not counter speeches " unique source of truth experience »
The Indian scientific experience on (cancers) also shows that science is not incompatible with H since it obtains results where allopathy is kept in check.

[pedrodelavega]

Example: If I tell you that I can detect with a pendulum a pebble hidden randomly in the hollow of one of your 2 hands but that by experimenting 100 times, I am wrong about half of the time (50% of success and failure on a test with 2 possibilities). To find out if I really have a gift, are you going to base yourself on my initial assertion or on the result of the experience?

This emphasizes, once again that you are talking about a subject that you completely ignore because you only retain an average success rate rather than a high success rate.

It's an example. With 3 hands and 2 stones, if the success rate does not significantly exceed 66,66% it comes to the same thing: In these experiments, if the success rate does not exceed chance, the gift is not proven.
If a dowser or a magnetizer can feel his action and / or assert that he has a gift, it is easy to set up a methodical and controlled experiment to prove it by eliminating all bias of interpretation (chance, trickery, etc. ...)

Yet it is an easily verifiable and measurable phenomenon.

Indeed, as many as possible, in real life, by competent people.

The experiments carried out in sourcery are simple to implement and to reproduce: No dowser tested until then could demonstrate any gift.

Would the popularity of a practice be scientific proof?

It's really obsessive! You have been told over and over again that the general public disregards evidence (supposedly scientific) even though the scientists in question have failed to resolve their health problem.

It is not because science does not have an answer that everything else has it.