abcstar Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) on this subject is being conducted in Chiangmai at the moment and the result will come out soon. Then we shall all see the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickyknee Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) on this subject is being conducted in Chiangmai at the moment and the result will come out soon. Then we shall all see the truth. by who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brit1984 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) on this subject is being conducted in Chiangmai at the moment and the result will come out soon. Then we shall all see the truth. plenty of tests have been done and we can already see the truth as summarised in the NHS' introduction to homeopathy, which i've linked to a couple times already in this thread but hasn't stopped some lunatics posting more and more nonsense... here is the link again... www.nhs.uk/conditions/Homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx and the opening paragraph (which says it all really) copied and pasted... A 2010 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report on homeopathy said that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos, and that the principles on which homeopathy is based are 'scientifically implausible'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partington Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) on this subject is being conducted in Chiangmai at the moment and the result will come out soon. Then we shall all see the truth. I find this impossible to believe. Homeopathists don't do double blind trials, because they don't give the results they want. They insist that homeopathy relies on continually assessing the patients' responses, and adjusting the treatment accordingly. This is a cop out they use to explain the fact that every double blind trial ever done has proved no better than placebo, because obviously in a double blind trial no-one knows who is getting the "treatment". Although in the case of homeopathy both groups are getting no treatment, so it's a moot point! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brit1984 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) on this subject is being conducted in Chiangmai at the moment and the result will come out soon. Then we shall all see the truth. I find this impossible to believe. Homeopathists don't do double blind trials, because they don't give the results they want. They insist that homeopathy relies on continually assessing the patients' responses, and adjusting the treatment accordingly. This is a cop out they use to explain the fact that every double blind trial ever done has proved no better than placebo, because obviously in a double blind trial no-one knows who is getting the "treatment". Although in the case of homeopathy both groups are getting no treatment, so it's a moot point! maybe they thought if they do the "randomized" controlled trial here in thailand they could bend the rules a bit like when a magician invites a "random" member of the audience up on stage to prove they aren't cheating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreignerinthai123 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) on this subject is being conducted in Chiangmai at the moment and the result will come out soon. Then we shall all see the truth. plenty of tests have been done and we can already see the truth as summarised in the NHS' introduction to homeopathy, which i've linked to a couple times already in this thread but hasn't stopped some lunatics posting more and more nonsense... here is the link again... www.nhs.uk/conditions/Homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx and the opening paragraph (which says it all really) copied and pasted... A 2010 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report on homeopathy said that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos, and that the principles on which homeopathy is based are 'scientifically implausible'. Although i don't say they are wrong about this,as i haven't looked at any research myself, i do want to point out that i think that it doesn't mean so much what a committee from the house of commons says. just this week another british politicized committee would have us believe GMO foods pose no health risks, no environmental risks and would even be more nutritional. some of the biggest bullshit ever comes from politicized committees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepool Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) on this subject is being conducted in Chiangmai at the moment and the result will come out soon. Then we shall all see the truth. By who exactly ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brit1984 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) on this subject is being conducted in Chiangmai at the moment and the result will come out soon. Then we shall all see the truth. plenty of tests have been done and we can already see the truth as summarised in the NHS' introduction to homeopathy, which i've linked to a couple times already in this thread but hasn't stopped some lunatics posting more and more nonsense... here is the link again... www.nhs.uk/conditions/Homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx and the opening paragraph (which says it all really) copied and pasted... A 2010 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report on homeopathy said that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos, and that the principles on which homeopathy is based are 'scientifically implausible'. Although i don't say they are wrong about this,as i haven't looked at any research myself, i do want to point out that i think that it doesn't mean so much what a committee from the house of commons says. just this week another british politicized committee would have us believe GMO foods pose no health risks, no environmental risks and would even be more nutritional. some of the biggest bullshit ever comes from politicized committees. i agree in general about political committees... but given the context that this report is cited by the NHS (which is probably as desperate as any entity in the word to find low cost medical alternatives, given their ever tightening budget constraints) i think it's fair to say if there was any credible shred of evidence in existence that homeopathy works, the NHS would not present such a 100% concrete dismissal of such "treatments" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notmyself Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Although i don't say they are wrong about this,as i haven't looked at any research myself, i do want to point out that i think that it doesn't mean so much what a committee from the house of commons says. just this week another british politicized committee would have us believe GMO foods pose no health risks, no environmental risks and would even be more nutritional. some of the biggest bullshit ever comes from politicized committees. Indeed. Someone mentioned a while back that we have been doing selective breading (which is exactly the same thing) for 1000s of years and we know that's not true. Oh wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreignerinthai123 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) Although i don't say they are wrong about this,as i haven't looked at any research myself, i do want to point out that i think that it doesn't mean so much what a committee from the house of commons says. just this week another british politicized committee would have us believe GMO foods pose no health risks, no environmental risks and would even be more nutritional. some of the biggest bullshit ever comes from politicized committees. Indeed. Someone mentioned a while back that we have been doing selective breading (which is exactly the same thing) for 1000s of years and we know that's not true. Oh wait! selective breeding is most definitely not the same thing, not even close. unless you think that corn can be selectively bred to a soil bacteria to make offspring which then includes BT toxins into every cell of the new "hybridized baceria/plant" organism. enjoy your meal? i want to add, that it's quite alarming that people are putting such misinformation out Edited March 18, 2014 by Foreignerinthai123 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notmyself Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Although i don't say they are wrong about this,as i haven't looked at any research myself, i do want to point out that i think that it doesn't mean so much what a committee from the house of commons says. just this week another british politicized committee would have us believe GMO foods pose no health risks, no environmental risks and would even be more nutritional. some of the biggest bullshit ever comes from politicized committees. Indeed. Someone mentioned a while back that we have been doing selective breading (which is exactly the same thing) for 1000s of years and we know that's not true. Oh wait! selective breeding is most definitely not the same thing, not even close. unless you think that corn can be selectively bred to a soil bacteria to make offspring which then includes BT toxins into every cell of the new "hybridized baceria/plant" organism. enjoy your meal? Evolution not your strong point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreignerinthai123 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Although i don't say they are wrong about this,as i haven't looked at any research myself, i do want to point out that i think that it doesn't mean so much what a committee from the house of commons says. just this week another british politicized committee would have us believe GMO foods pose no health risks, no environmental risks and would even be more nutritional. some of the biggest bullshit ever comes from politicized committees. Indeed. Someone mentioned a while back that we have been doing selective breading (which is exactly the same thing) for 1000s of years and we know that's not true. Oh wait! selective breeding is most definitely not the same thing, not even close. unless you think that corn can be selectively bred to a soil bacteria to make offspring which then includes BT toxins into every cell of the new "hybridized baceria/plant" organism. enjoy your meal? Evolution not your strong point? i'm affraid it's not your strong point. Evolution does not cross animal kingdoms, e.g plants with bacteria, or plants with animals. you just can't selectively breed a animal with a vegetable, can you? it's off topic, but as i do think it is important that people understand the difference between natural evolution or natural cross breeding i copy pasted some info for you here. don’t take it from me—take it from Craig Holdrege, director of The Nature Institute. He explains that the most critical difference between natural and GM breeding is that natural breeding crosses only organisms that are already closely related—two varieties of corn, for example—whereas, in contrast, GM breeding slaps together genes from up to 15 wildly different sources. Here’s how he explained the convoluted GM breeding process to me in an email: To make a GM plant, scientists need to isolate DNA from different organisms—bacteria, viruses, plants, and sometimes animals (or humans if the target gene is a human gene). They then recombine these genes biochemically in the lab to make a "gene construct," which can consist of DNA from five to fifteen different sources. This gene construct is cloned in bacteria to make lots of copies, which are then isolated. Next, the copies are shot into embryonic plant tissue (microprojectile bombardment), or moved into plant tissue via a particular bacterium (Agrobacterium) that acts as a vector. After getting the construct copies into the embryonic plant tissue, whole plants are regenerated. Only a few plants out of many hundreds will turn out to grow normally and exhibit the desired trait—such as herbicide resistance. Or take it from Joe Mendelson, director of the Center for Food Safety. Here’s how he put in it in an email: The difference is pretty large. In regular cross pollination, the species being crossed have to be related . . . basically respecting their common evolutionary origin. But with GMOs, you can take any gene from any species and splice it into a crop. So you get fish genes in tomatoes or the like. I hope this clears it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p_brownstone Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Hmmmm So ........ Homeopathy theory dictates that the more anything is diluted in water, the more effective it becomes? I can tell you from experience that's nonsense - well at least it does not work with Chivas Regal so why should it work with anything else?? Patrick 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notmyself Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 i'm affraid it's not your strong point. Evolution does not cross animal kingdoms, e.g plants with bacteria, or plants with animals. you just can't selectively breed a animal with a vegetable, can you? it's off topic, but as i do think it is important that people understand the difference between natural evolution or natural cross breeding i copy pasted some info for you here. dont take it from metake it from Craig Holdrege, director of The Nature Institute. He explains that the most critical difference between natural and GM breeding is that natural breeding crosses only organisms that are already closely relatedtwo varieties of corn, for examplewhereas, in contrast, GM breeding slaps together genes from up to 15 wildly different sources. Heres how he explained the convoluted GM breeding process to me in an email: To make a GM plant, scientists need to isolate DNA from different organismsbacteria, viruses, plants, and sometimes animals (or humans if the target gene is a human gene). They then recombine these genes biochemically in the lab to make a "gene construct," which can consist of DNA from five to fifteen different sources. This gene construct is cloned in bacteria to make lots of copies, which are then isolated. Next, the copies are shot into embryonic plant tissue (microprojectile bombardment), or moved into plant tissue via a particular bacterium (Agrobacterium) that acts as a vector. After getting the construct copies into the embryonic plant tissue, whole plants are regenerated. Only a few plants out of many hundreds will turn out to grow normally and exhibit the desired traitsuch as herbicide resistance. Or take it from Joe Mendelson, director of the Center for Food Safety. Heres how he put in it in an email: The difference is pretty large. In regular cross pollination, the species being crossed have to be related . . . basically respecting their common evolutionary origin. But with GMOs, you can take any gene from any species and splice it into a crop. So you get fish genes in tomatoes or the like. I hope this clears it up Everything is related by way of a common ancestor but the really interesting point about this is that GMO would not work if everything were not related. You may find this of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notmyself Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 The problem with followers of 'woo' such as homeopathy is that they think that it is people who are against them but it is not, it is knowledge and facts that are against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Placebo effect? I only read the first few response posts, but am glad to see most T.Visa members are not believers in hocus pocus. Placebo effect? Yes, that's all that homeopathy is good for - besides bringing revenue to snake oil salesmen and women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) on this subject is being conducted in Chiangmai at the moment and the result will come out soon. Then we shall all see the truth. I doubt there are any researchers in Chiang Mai who could conduct a truly double blind test. Farang possibly, ....Thai, v. doubtful. Thais are so personable and subjective, I can't see how they could do a truly double blind experiment in anything. I tried doing a simple experiment (testing psychic powers) with some Thai U students, and they just couldn't do it objectively. They kept giggling and wanting hints and trying to peek around corners (to get hints), that it devolved to a farce. A country of people who indelibly believe in ghosts cannot be expected to produce scientists who would be able to do 100% objective double-blind experiments. For similar reasons, that's why the Chinese have never been able to prove that pulverized dog bone is as useless as pulverized tiger bone for getting their men to 'rise to the occasion'. James Randi, while investigating homeopathy, was asked to look at the results of a double blind test done in France by one of France's most prominent scientists. Even the Frenchman was found to have infused some subjectivity in to the experiment, and a subsequent experiment (identical, but with more strict guidelines) done by Randi showed that homeopathy has no effects other than pure water. The Frenchman and his team had found evidence that homeopathic 'water has memory' .....Randi's more objective experiment found that to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybuz Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 eradicate it at the source,public health should educate the locals [if possible] where i live at the moment used to be mossie heaven but with government sponsored programs and aerial spraying the mossies are all but gone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 eradicate it at the source,public health should educate the locals [if possible] where i live at the moment used to be mossie heaven but with government sponsored programs and aerial spraying the mossies are all but gone. I'm surprised the Health Minister didn't prescribe homeopathic remedies (for too many mosquitoes bites) to the residents, and another birth control homeopathic elixer to the mossies themselves. Similarly, perhaps the makers of the hoax bomb detectors can come out with a new black plastic box which eradicates mosquitoes. Thai authorities would buy them by the boxload, even if the devices were $17,000 each. Are the dozens of bogus bomb detectors (yes, at about $17,000 each) still being used in southern Thailand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickyknee Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) on this subject is being conducted in Chiangmai at the moment and the result will come out soon. Then we shall all see the truth. I doubt there are any researchers in Chiang Mai who could conduct a truly double blind test. Farang possibly, ....Thai, v. doubtful. Thais are so personable and subjective, I can't see how they could do a truly double blind experiment in anything. I tried doing a simple experiment (testing psychic powers) with some Thai U students, and they just couldn't do it objectively. They kept giggling and wanting hints and trying to peek around corners (to get hints), that it devolved to a farce. A country of people who indelibly believe in ghosts cannot be expected to produce scientists who would be able to do 100% objective double-blind experiments. For similar reasons, that's why the Chinese have never been able to prove that pulverized dog bone is as useless as pulverized tiger bone for getting their men to 'rise to the occasion'. James Randi, while investigating homeopathy, was asked to look at the results of a double blind test done in France by one of France's most prominent scientists. Even the Frenchman was found to have infused some subjectivity in to the experiment, and a subsequent experiment (identical, but with more strict guidelines) done by Randi showed that homeopathy has no effects other than pure water. The Frenchman and his team had found evidence that homeopathic 'water has memory' .....Randi's more objective experiment found that to be wrong. I'm not really in the mood to go over any of that research, but by going by what you have said, scientifically they were both wrong. the experiment was not strictly repeated, and the results could not be reproduced, so which is right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility as a note, of all of the reading i've done in the past few days whilst reading this thread, research done by homeopaths is all based on anecdotal evidence, or on tests that aren't repeatable or reproducible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) on this subject is being conducted in Chiangmai at the moment and the result will come out soon. Then we shall all see the truth. I doubt there are any researchers in Chiang Mai who could conduct a truly double blind test. Farang possibly, ....Thai, v. doubtful. Thais are so personable and subjective, I can't see how they could do a truly double blind experiment in anything. I tried doing a simple experiment (testing psychic powers) with some Thai U students, and they just couldn't do it objectively. They kept giggling and wanting hints and trying to peek around corners (to get hints), that it devolved to a farce. A country of people who indelibly believe in ghosts cannot be expected to produce scientists who would be able to do 100% objective double-blind experiments. For similar reasons, that's why the Chinese have never been able to prove that pulverized dog bone is as useless as pulverized tiger bone for getting their men to 'rise to the occasion'. James Randi, while investigating homeopathy, was asked to look at the results of a double blind test done in France by one of France's most prominent scientists. Even the Frenchman was found to have infused some subjectivity in to the experiment, and a subsequent experiment (identical, but with more strict guidelines) done by Randi showed that homeopathy has no effects other than pure water. The Frenchman and his team had found evidence that homeopathic 'water has memory' .....Randi's more objective experiment found that to be wrong. I'm not really in the mood to go over any of that research, but by going by what you have said, scientifically they were both wrong. the experiment was not strictly repeated, and the results could not be reproduced, so which is right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility as a note, of all of the reading i've done in the past few days whilst reading this thread, research done by homeopaths is all based on anecdotal evidence, or on tests that aren't repeatable or reproducible. The experiment done by the French lab found evidence that 'water has memory' - which is the basis of homeopathy. Randi was called in to repeat the experiment, which he did. However, when Randi did it, HE HID THE 'CONTROL SHEET' (which showed which numbers corresponded to which samples) atop the ceiling tiles of the lab. So, the lab scientists had absolutely no idea which samples had a mixture and which were pure water. The results of the completely objective scientific experiment (by Randi) were different than the subjective results shown by the French lab. WATER DOES NOT HAVE MEMORY. Therefore, homeopathy is bunk, because that's its underpinning. Its only use is as a placebo. If they want to sell water with a label saying PLACEBO, that's fine by me. But if they sell bottles of water which claim to have therapeutic qualities, then that's selling snake oil, and should be illegal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepool Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I rapidly become irritated by these "debates" about "homeopathy" as they rapidly degenerate into unproductive argument. For the record there is absolutely no objective scientific evidence (beyond placebo) that "magic water" and sugar pills ever cured or prevented anything ! For those that believe in "magic" I say --------- Produce the Evidence! Any research published .in a reputable , scientific, peer reviewed journal would be acceptable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdimension Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Has anyone had much success with aromatherapy to repel mosquitoes? Aromatherapy could have a little more scientific basis as mosquitoes can find humans via their sense of smell. Where are good places to buy essential oils cheaply in Bangkok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepool Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> Has anyone had much success with aromatherapy to repel mosquitoes? Aromatherapy could have a little more scientific basis as mosquitoes can find humans via their sense of smell. Where are good places to buy essential oils cheaply in Bangkok? There actually is some evidence for citronella and also clove oil being an effective mossie repellents. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ptr.1637/abstract I believe citronella is widely available in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybuz Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) A cheap, popular way to prevent mosquito bites in Southeast Asia is to burn mosquito coils under your table or while sitting outside. Coils are made from pyrethrum, a powder derived from chrysanthemum plants, and burn slowly to provide protection for hours; never burn mosquito coils inside! i did once when younger and set fire to my bed Edited March 21, 2014 by heybuz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyG Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> Has anyone had much success with aromatherapy to repel mosquitoes? Aromatherapy could have a little more scientific basis as mosquitoes can find humans via their sense of smell. Where are good places to buy essential oils cheaply in Bangkok? There actually is some evidence for citronella and also clove oil being an effective mossie repellents. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ptr.1637/abstract I believe citronella is widely available in Thailand. Citronella is also known as lemongrass oil (being made from lemongrass species). As a child, almost 50 years ago back in the UK, we used it as a natural fly repellent to stop flies bothering our rabbit and guinea pigs. It appeared to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdimension Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 A cheap, popular way to prevent mosquito bites in Southeast Asia is to burn mosquito coils under your table or while sitting outside. Coils are made from pyrethrum, a powder derived from chrysanthemum plants, and burn slowly to provide protection for hours; never burn mosquito coils inside! i did once when younger and set fire to my bed I think the fumes from coils may be bad for health, which is why I am considering to use essential oils and a vaporizer (or diffuser?) to fill the room with aroma that repels mosquitoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyG Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 News just in: some homeopathic medicine may actually be effective:http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/25/homeopathy-contains-medicine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 News just in: some homeopathic medicine may actually be effective: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/25/homeopathy-contains-medicine Just because it may contain a trace amount of something, doesn't mean it's necessarily effective as a cure. Homeopathic 'medicine' if processed correctly is pure water. If it has a trace of something other than water, which is detectable, then it is not homeopathic. I once went to a metals recycling plant in the US. I showed them a gold coin, but they wanted to test it to see. Their multi-thousand $$ metal detection device came up with readings for: platinum, and and several other metals, ...but no gold. And that was for a 100% gold coin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickyknee Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 News just in: some homeopathic medicine may actually be effective: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/25/homeopathy-contains-medicine Just because it may contain a trace amount of something, doesn't mean it's necessarily effective as a cure. Homeopathic 'medicine' if processed correctly is pure water. If it has a trace of something other than water, which is detectable, then it is not homeopathic. I once went to a metals recycling plant in the US. I showed them a gold coin, but they wanted to test it to see. Their multi-thousand $$ metal detection device came up with readings for: platinum, and and several other metals, ...but no gold. And that was for a 100% gold coin! did you read the article?Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now