Christina Johansson says:
January 10, 2014 at 04:48
The lobby I am talking about is informal and can be seen a bit here and there online, not least on sites like Flashback and various blogs around the world. It includes all sorts of alternative medicine, but homeopathy also occurs. You can not deny that you have also written that homeopathy is effective against cancer and is quite negative to the usual treatment. However, I do not claim that you have referred this to Robert. On the other hand, the homeopath I spoke to face to face did.
If I meet him again, I'll suggest that he can explain himself here. I will not decide if he will do it.
I have also seen a lot of Flashback posts about this. As I see it, Flashback is Sweden's largest lobby site. But if you think they are frivolous and dissociate themselves from such advice, I think it honors you.
Since my question is mainly about how Robert sees that the Quack Act can be relaxed regarding methods that are claimed to cure dangerous diseases such as cancer, then I include all dubious alternative methods. Of course also then homeopathy.
But I apologize for not being clear that with the tough campaign against ordinary cancer treatment, I meant EVERYTHING that can be included in the Quack Act.
But the question of who actually wins if you ease the quack law remains. Likewise, whether homeopathy, which is still the main topic in the thread, should be able to be launched as an effective cancer treatment based on the current state of research.
Robert Hahn says:
January 10, 2014 at 11:32 am
No, I have never really said that homeopathy is effective against cancer. What you write that "you can not deny that even you have written that homeopathy is effective against cancer and is quite negative to the usual treatment" is completely taken out of the air.
Honestly, I am not interested in homeopathy and in alternative medicine as such. I am not involved in, and have no interest in, the Quack Act, but flag that it will eventually be forced to harmonize with the rest of the EU in a way that does not benefit VoF's goal of scrapping all non-academic medicine. On the other hand, as some know, I am interested in spiritual philosophy.
My interest in this particular debate is about an amateurish organization like VoF being given such a large social leeway for a campaign based on lies. Here it is said on TV that there is not a single scientific study that shows that homeopathy is better than placebo. That's wrong. It is written that homeopathy is a fake medicine, and even gets support from politicians (such as Birgitta Rydberg) for it. But this cannot be expressed in light of the fact that the majority of the existing studies actually show that homeopathy is superior to placebo (it appears from the meta-analyzes, which I have referred to in this blog). To write like that is to try to be deceived. But VoF's hatred of alternative methods is so great that you do not hesitate to cheat yourself. Considering that the other party is unreliable is also no reason to act in this way, especially not if you (like VoF) claim to represent science.
VoF considers that it has reason to overlook the results of published studies on the basis of the objections it has to them. But the limitations ("limitations", stated last in a script) do not at all justify claiming that the results do not exist. Then you should write that the results exist, but that you do not believe in them. But that is not how VoF spreads its messages.
I have learned a lot about how VoF reasons, and the train order in their arguments, both on this current blog and the reasoning we had 3 years ago. I will analyze it in more detail in a later blog. Right now, however, I do not have time to discuss this with you anymore, but have to devote myself to other tasks.
nanowire says:
January 10, 2014 at 10:51 am
As information for those who do not know this, the author of the post above Marina Szöges runs a page, dagshomeopati.se, which in addition to unilaterally and unscientifically lobbying for homeopathy about exactly as far as the law allows, also spreads misinformation about vaccines and healthcare etc.
nanowire says:
January 10, 2014 at 3:01 am
@Robert
Robert Hahn says: January 10, 2014 at 11:32 am “No, I have never really said that homeopathy is effective against cancer. What you write that "you can not deny that even you have written that homeopathy is effective against cancer and is quite negative to the usual treatment" is completely taken out of thin air. "
It was obviously not you but Marina who was referred to in your quote.
Do you still think that the scientific situation for homeopathy hay fever is positive (due to the data from Linde -97) even after the systematic review from 2006 I referred to above and who stated that “Therefore it is not possible to provide evidence-based recommendations for homeopathy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis ”?
Anders Gustafsson says:
January 10, 2014 at 10:31 am
@Christina
Also, do not forget the "Whole Children" campaign, which wants to remove the provision that homeopaths may not treat young children.
@Marina
Your silence on issues where homeopathy is used unethically can easily be seen as your agreement. What would it be like if you wrote an article in Dagens Homeopati where you clarify how you approach cancer treatment and to the homeopaths who believe that all medicine is "poisonous" and that cancer patients who take homeopathy as a supplement to chemotherapy should immediately stop using it?
Your credibility as a writer would increase considerably if you clearly pointed out the cheating and fraud that takes place in the name of homeopathy
Respond
Christina Johansson says:
January 10, 2014 at 02:01
@Robert
"What you write that 'you can not deny that even you have written that homeopathy is effective against cancer and is quite negative to the usual treatment" is completely taken out of thin air. - See more at:
http://roberthahn.nu/2014/01/05/min-vetenskapliga-artikel-om-homeopati/#sthash.r87BvgNi.dpuf ”
That, like the rest of the latest post, was a response to Marina Szöges. She has written that homeopathy is effective against cancer. I was at least clear in my first post that I have never seen you write anything like that. I have fully accepted your answer that you are not responsible for this and have ever written it.
So in this I have nothing more to ask.
But on the other hand, I had completely different questions for you in the post before. Unfortunately, you only answer how you view VoF's actions in this matter, even though I made it clear that this does not interest me.
What I wonder is whether it would be good or bad if the Quack Act is eased when it comes to how to launch dubious treatment methods as effective? And who can win and lose on this?
I am not interested in what this means for VoF's interests.
Also, I wonder what you think of some individuals' way of overinterpreting your views into claiming that homeopathy is a completely proven method of treatment for virtually any disease?
But if you are not interested in the practical effects that can have if unsuspecting people choose bad, but well-marketed treatment methods, against a life-threatening disease, then I must respect that.
If you are more interested in discussing an association, then this discussion will be as uninteresting to me as to the vast majority who think that healthcare itself is more important than a particular association.
Marina Szöges says:
January 10, 2014 at 5:10 am
Christina and Anders, it's true that I have written about cancer at Dagens Homeopati, but there are no articles I have invented myself.
Among other things, I have referred to the following articles:
> The potentized homeopathic drug, Lycopodium clavatum (5C and 15C) has anti-cancer effect on whole cells in vitro:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23972240 > Improvement of quality of life as well as a tendency of fatigue symptoms to decrease in cancer patients under complementary homeopathic treatment:
http://7thspace.com/headlines/369886/classical_homeopathy_in_the_treatment_of_cancer_patients__a_prospective_observational_study_of_two_independent_cohorts_.html Incidentally, it can hardly be wrong to inform about homeopathy and what is happening in homeopathy in other countries. I think it's good that information is coming out and it's also good that Robert Hahn teaches us how to look at scientific studies. When you read his post, it's like a candle lit in the dark. Many people like that light, but others do not.
(Regardless of what skeptics write next, I will not post more posts that govern from the topic)
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 10, 2014 at 5:49 am
@Marina
Quote: “By the way, it can hardly be wrong to inform about homeopathy and what is happening in homeopathy in other countries. I think it's good that information is coming out and it's also good that Robert Hahn teaches us how to look at scientific studies. When you read his post, it's like a candle lit in the dark. Many people like that light, but others do not. ” End quote.
However, I must say that from what Robert has written here does not give much support to what you usually write in Today's Homeopathy and other places, no matter where you get it from. What he explains about studies I do not see as convincing evidence for homeopathy.
That there are studies that indicate that homeopathy cures cancer, I think he clearly dismisses. We'll see if Robert has any comment on the sources you cite.
nanowire says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:25 pm
@Marina
"I think it's good that information is coming out and it's also good that Robert Hahn teaches us how to look at scientific studies. When you read his post, it's like a candle lit in the dark. Many people like that light, but others do not. ”
Glad you learned something about science! Then I hope that in today's homeopathy you will in the future report in a balanced way on the overall scientific state of evidence for homeopathic treatment, e.g. that there is no support for homeopathy for hay fever, instead of the one-sided propaganda and censorship you have dealt with so far?
Helge says:
January 10, 2014 at 3:52 am
Thank you Robert Hahn for your very interesting articles on science! They really are
good examples of public education and thus the exact opposite of what Vof achieves.
See for example:
http://sv.vof.wikia.com/wiki/VoF_och_LCHF and
http://sv.vof.wikia.com/wiki/Föreningen_Vetenskap_och_Folkbildning
Respond
Mats Larsson says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:28 pm
I have long suspected that Robert would be difficult to beat in the homeopathy issue, after reading his blogs on the subject. But I did not think that he would win in the walk over. Where is VoF? Mats Reimer? One thing is for sure, no condescending comments about the "spirit doctor" can be afforded in this situation.
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 11, 2014 at 4:19 am
@Mats Larsson
By winning the walk over, I hope you do not mean that Robert Hahn with this conviction has proved that homeopathy is an effective method of treatment? As I see it, the debate has mostly been about how to handle statistics in research. After all, he has admitted that much of what is claimed by homeopaths cannot be proven.
And why do you think he has not been resisted? Does only Mats Reimer count?
Respond
Mats Larsson says:
January 11, 2014 at 5:15 am
If you read the abstract of Robert's article and the comments he wrote, you will understand that he did not intend at all to show that homeopathy is an effective method of treatment. The question is whether meta-analyzes show that homeopathy can be equated with placebo and the answer in Robert's review article is no. Anyone who wants to show that he has misinterpreted the meta-analyzes must now, in order to be credible, write a comment in the same journal, a comment that will be reviewed by a couple of anonymous referees before it is published.
No, he has not yet received any opposition in the form of scientific criticism of his article. I would guess that the opponents who count for Robert are the ones who ridiculed him as the "spirit doctor" and similar invective. And in that branch, VoF and Mats Reimer should be well placed.
Homeopathy does not interest me, and I will not read Robert's article in its entirety. However, I can easily understand that he probably thought it was fun to write a scientific article outside his own special field.
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 12, 2014 at 1:32 am
Only you know if homeopathy really does not interest you. But you wrote in your first post that he would be hard hit in homeopathy. I think the only thing that most people find really interesting is if there are studies that really prove that homeopathy is an effective method.
He has not done that. He has explained that some studies have given slightly better results compared to placebo. However, these individual studies are not sufficient evidence. If it was about what you wrote here, I think he has received good resistance. But if the compelling evidence that homeopathy really works is subordinate to this discussion, I understand if the interest is not overwhelming.
After all, it is what most people want to know, more than conceptual philosophical interpretations. When he is asked direct questions about what homeopathy can be cured and if it should be approved, he prefers to discuss an association's interests instead. There are probably not many of you who think that it is more interesting than what an approval as a form of treatment can mean.
I think he himself kills the discussion by making it uninteresting to other than old sworn warriors. Who at seventeen cares about an internal prestige fight? It is probably the practical consequence in healthcare that people normally care about.
If you think he won the walk over because there was no pie-throwing with certain specific people, well that's a personal opinion of you. I doubt it is shared by everyone. We'll see if he gets a setback for his publications. Researchers like to take time for such things.
Better a poor horse than no horse at all.
Respond
Helge says:
January 13, 2014 at 02:58
Mats Blomqvist Professoe Hahn has written an interesting article about the scientific state of homeopathy. But you focus on pie tossing instead of commenting on the article.
Why?
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 13, 2014 at 01:52 am
Am I into pie tossing? It was, to say the least, a personal interpretation of you.
I just wonder why Mats Larsson wonders why he did not resist. What I am saying is just that he admits that homeopathy is not convincingly proven to be effective against all diseases. Only that he believes that some studies give slightly better results than placebo.
What I respond to are Mats Larsson's statements.
I believe that the questions about which diseases homeopathy can be recommended against are much more interesting to the public than the feud between Hahn and Mats Reimer. Something that Mats Larsson thought was what counts for Robert. Personally, I doubt it.
But if you think I do pie throwing, can you raise the bar and say if you think homeopathy should be classified and approved as a treatment for serious diseases such as cancer?
Feel free to explain why you think I'm just throwing pie. How do you go about responding to posts here without it being classified as pie tossing, in your opinion?
Isn't it pie-tossing to wonder what practical conclusions should be drawn from the studies? As if they are enough for homeopathy to be approved as an effective treatment and against which diseases isf?
Respond
Helge says:
January 13, 2014 at 02:09
Mats Blomqvist writes: "But if you think that I engage in pie-throwing, can you raise the level and say if you think that homeopathy should be classified and approved as treatment for serious diseases such as cancer?"
Why would I have an opinion about it (My opinion about it has nothing to do with the article)?
I do not practice homeopathy, but I am interested in scientific methodology and research methods.
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 13, 2014 at 02:40
@ weekend
Quote: “Why would I have an opinion about it (My opinion about it has nothing to do with the article)? I do not practice homeopathy, but I am interested in scientific methodology and research methods. ” End quote
Can you then understand that some of us are also interested in what practical conclusions can be drawn from the studies? For example, if they are sufficient for homeopathy to be classified as approved and proven studies?
Why do you think it's pie tossing? Can you specify what is pie tossing and not here, and justify why? What can you not think and ask?
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 13, 2014 at 02:44
Edit: "For example, if they are enough for homeopathy to be classified as approved and proven studies?"
In that sense, I meant treatments, not studies.
Respond
Helge says:
January 14, 2014 at 1:02 am
@Mats Blomqvist
I think it is clear what conclusions can be drawn from the article on homeopathy. Robert Hahn writes, among other things, about how research on the effects of Homeopathy could go further to improve the evidence. What the results of such investigations will be can not be known in advance. That does not stop many people from believing a lot, but it has nothing to do with the interesting article.
What the article shows is that VoF's way of assessing homeopathy has NOT to do with science. Why does vof deal with it then? The preparations seem harmless (unlike, for example, cigarettes, which kill thousands of Swedes every year. But VoF never takes it up.). VoF does not seem to be involved in issues of public health. On the contrary, in fact. See the attacks on LCHF
for example, although the National Board of Health and Welfare and the SBU have expressed a positive opinion. So if you are thinking about why vof
do as they do, then they seem like they want to benefit the drug companies, and that's okay,
but why pretend it has to do with science?
So those who are interested in the scientific truth about homeopathy should of course advocate MORE research on homeopathy. It's not weirder than that.
At Danderyd's hospital, there are those who practice medical yoga, and there are no objections to that, despite the fact that the evidence is not extensive. However, it is still considered sufficient to be used, BUT Robert Hahn's article is not about treatment recommendations. So I think you're a little off topic in the article.
That was just what I wanted to point out. Maybe my wording was unnecessarily pointed.
It is, of course, the moderator who decides what may be written here, and I will not dwell on that.
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 14, 2014 at 02:30
@helge
Where have I claimed that one can not proceed with more studies on homeopathy? It is obviously necessary before one can say that there is convincing evidence that it works. Which is clearly shown in Robert's studies. They have not proven homeopathy, only shown that some studies have shown slightly better statistics than placebo.
I and other writers wonder if these studies are enough for homeopathy to be approved as effective treatment methods for all diseases it is claimed to be effective against. What I point out with my posts is that these studies do not hold up to these claims today.
What many homeopaths claim is effective is not proven today with these studies.
I'm still wondering why you say I'm into pie tossing with this?
Then you can ask yourself why you bring up a lot about vof, lchf and yoga that I did not even have an opinion on, while you claim that I go to the side of the thread? Is that really so
strange if one wonders what those PRACTICES should have for PRACTICAL significance in healthcare right now.
Personally, I think that is what most people are most interested in.
Respond
Helge says:
January 14, 2014 at 1:13 am
@Mats Blomqvist, to clarify further. The discussion on treatment recommendations should, in my opinion, be with the homeopaths, and not with Robert Hahn, because homeopaths are dealing with things that are NOT Robert Hahn. Marina Szöges may be able to advise you on suitable sites.
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 14, 2014 at 02:38
@Helge
Quote ”@Mats Blomqvist, to clarify further. The discussion on treatment recommendations should, in my opinion, be with the homeopaths, and not with Robert Hahn, because homeopaths are dealing with things that are NOT Robert Hahn. Marina Szöges may be able to advise you on suitable sites. ” End quote
If you look back, you will see that Marina Szöges has written here and shown links where she refers to homeopathy curing cancer. It was her I replicated first. I would love to see Robert comment on those links. As far as I understand, he does not believe that homeopathy cures cancer.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to discuss on her side. She also censors relevant issues and objections.
Respond
Perra J says:
January 14, 2014 at 1:37 am
To get a perspective on all that has been said here, there is on the other hand
any clear evidence of the evidence of a non-homeopathic remedy?
It can also be an interesting discussion. Is the established medicine / care
on a scientifically higher level is homeopathy? And an interesting follow-up question:
If so, does this always mean that the patient gets better?
Because cancer has been discussed: I can very well imagine a cytotoxic drug
gives "effect" that clearly distinguishes it from placebo. But a cytotoxin
is also usually carcinogenic in itself. Despite this, the cytotoxin is considered
be a safer drug than a homeopathic remedy?
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 14, 2014 at 02:46
I hope that Robert also answers that question.
Personally, I am fairly convinced that cytotoxic drugs are an effective method against cancer, superior to placebo. Even though I know it's a difficult treatment. But cancer is also a deadly disease.
If you mean more effective with safer, I think it's safer than homeopathy. But for a healthy person, homeopathy is certainly safer than chemotherapy. If you now understand what I mean?
Respond
Perra J says:
January 14, 2014 at 04:12
Well, topic of a new thread maybe? It would be interesting to hear what a real doctor
says. Need, for example, such a study / meta-study (everything that constitutes the scientific basis for a drug's approval)
also map out side effects? How carefully in that case? Or do these fall outside?
Robert claims to be open to "traps in science", and I believe that corruption is one such.
There is a difference between science, and the "mental image of science", which guarantees that you receive the best medicine / care that humanity can offer. The scientifically “objective” can easily be cut off by subjective interests… (which of course can occur in all camps, including homeopathy)
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 14, 2014 at 7:21 am
Ben Goldacre has written some books on this that are said to be very good. Including Bad Science and Bad Pharma. I have only seen excerpts from them, but will probably read them in their entirety.
Research fraud has probably always occurred and better rules against such are probably needed. Just as pure quacks should be cleared away, lousy "real" medicines should also disappear.
Respond
Perra J says:
January 14, 2014 at 10:53 am
Well, Goldacre is good. Have seen some youtubers with him ..
Research fraud, yes. Feel free to read my latest blog about just this!
I fear that it is something much more than something that "occurs",
rather rule than exception, m a o.
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 15, 2014 at 2:03 am
@PerraJ
Quote "I fear that it is something much more than something that 'occurs', rather a rule than an exception, m a o." End quote.
Do you mean that practically most medicines in healthcare are scams, with a few exceptions? Really hope Robert gives his opinion on this.
What do you think about studies on alternative medicine in that case?
Anders Gustafsson says:
January 15, 2014 at 02:25
I have read both Bad Pharma and Bad Science and the comments about the pharmaceutical industry and also the homeopathic industry are not gracious. The point, however, is that he, as a doctor, focuses on research fraud in the pharmaceutical industry. When was the last time you heard a homeopath criticize the homeopathic industry?
He also cites the hopeopaths' galloping publication bias as an example of widespread cheating.
Of course, it is not the case that most medicines are a hoax, but Ben's point is that a doctor does not always have access to all the information she needs to be able to assess which drugs are best in a given case. It is simply a matter of transparency.
Perra J says:
January 15, 2014 at 3:30 AM
I advise you to also check out Ralf Sundberg, who is also a doctor who goes against his own guise. And Swedish (Click on Perra J). Watch the video!
"Do you mean that practically most medicines in healthcare are scams, with a few exceptions?"
I'm angry now, after reading Sundberg's book. But of course I have to calm down a bit. Though:
Most medicines are not scams, but I really mean that most established medicines are NOT meant to CURE. Especially when it comes to our major public diseases (cancer, diabetes).
No, the medications either only relieve symptoms, or create an imbalance that leads to other diseases.
But we have become so used to it that we can no longer see it.
Nor can it be otherwise, since pharmaceutical companies are corporations that must make a profit, and must grow, in order to satisfy their shareholders. It must be ensured that the patient returns. It must be ensured that the growth of new patients is secured. It sounds harsh, but it is.
So it depends on what you mean, when you ask that question. My father was completely cured of acute kidney failure by a homeopath in the 60's, after having a few months to live on established care. At present, homeopathy has nothing to lose by curing the patient, but if they are allowed to take over the paradigm, it may change…
Now look, for example, at the galloping diabetes epidemic in the United States. The medicines they receive are designed to allow the patient to live a tolerable life despite the disease. And diabetes creates a flora of other diseases that provide merit.
nanowire says:
January 15, 2014 at 04:28
“Most medicines are not scams, but I really mean that most established medicines are NOT meant to CURE. Especially when it comes to our major public diseases (cancer, diabetes). "
"The medications they receive are designed to allow the patient to live a tolerable life despite the disease [diabetes]."
It is interesting that you mention these as they are among the most researched areas in medicine, including the state. What has worked so far is of a curative nature, even though vaccines against both certain types of diabetes and cancer seem promising.
Do you mean that there is something that actually cures cancer and diabetes in all its forms?
nanowire says:
January 15, 2014 at 04:44
"What has worked so far is NOT of a curative nature…" it would of course be stated above.
Perra J says:
January 15, 2014 at 08:43
Thanks nanowire.
It is certain that these belong to the most researched areas. But I do not think researchers are honestly dedicated to solving the cancer mystery that people are so eager to believe (and that they want us to believe). They stay within a framework that was founded sometime after the war, perhaps even further back.
My grandfather died of cancer in 1948. He received basically the same treatment as another relative who died of cancer in 2003 (surgery / radiation / cytotoxic / morphine for the pain).
During these years, man went to the moon, while it has stood completely still in one of the most researched areas. During all these years. So something is probably wrong.
The research that is conducted is only allowed to take small steps (so that you get the impression of progress) within the framework that ultimately still ensures continued (and increased) profit. And there is hardly anything on this earth that is as profitable as the cancer industry. The cancer industry (and the entire pharmaceutical industry) is hierarchical. One does not question a higher authority. But those at the top of the hierarchy are not scientists. Instead, they pay for the entire careers of scientists, pay for their professorships, offer great trips abroad and banquets with Russian caviar and well-being girls. In return for arranging a "scientific" alibi for their activities.
The Catholic Church is another example of how something stood still for many years. That was probably the question of about 1700 years. There we also had hierarchy. One did not question the superior. Those who sat (and sit?) At the top of that hierarchy were not even believers (according to Dostoevsky). And the task of the priests was more to create an alibi for the pope's lust for power than to show "sinful" people the way to God…
The people who are thoroughly scientifically educated, and experienced in science in the first place, often have a lack of insight into how humans work. And it's dangerous.
Do you mean that there is something that actually cures cancer and diabetes in all its forms?
No, I do not know if it does. But I absolutely believe there is potential to solve the cancer and diabetes mystery, and that it could have been done a long time ago. Rigid hierarchical systems and science do not go together.
nanowire says:
January 15, 2014 at 04:44
"What has worked so far is NOT of a curative nature…" it would of course be stated above.
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 15, 2014 at 11:30 am
@PerraJ
I have to ask you: Do you belong to the category that claims that the research world and the pharmaceutical companies are deliberately slowing down research to find better cures for cancer in order to make as much money as possible from getting as many people as possible to get cancer?
I really wish Robert would come in and comment on your posts as well. It would be interesting to see what he thinks about everything you write about medicines not being meant to cure, but only to relieve symptoms and create imbalances that create more diseases.
I wonder what Robert thinks is more confusing? Everything you write, or those who write that there is no research that supports homeopathy?
Then I wonder if you, PerraJ, think that the alternative industry is not driven by any profit hunger at all and how common is it that they market their products with fake research? Are not alternative companies profitable companies?
Yes, it happens that doctors criticize their own guild. How often do homeopaths and other alternatives criticize their own guild? What conclusions should we draw from what you write?
Respond
Perra J says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:13 am
@Mats
The "category" I belong to is the category that is interested in the truth. And you see it best if you avoid polarized thinking. There is no "right side", possibly temporarily! Just because I shrugged off what has become "established medicine" does not mean that I turn on the drum for homeopathy (at the moment I would choose homeopathy / alternative / independent science if I got sick, though). It is only when a system gains power, and a hierarchical structure emerges (and human ego takes over), that the risk of corruption arises. Homeopathy has not yet created really SO rigid systems as, for example, the cancer industry. In Germany, homeopathy may seem to be heading in that direction, so you may have to adapt there. But then there are hopefully other ways.
And of course, the actual research that is focused on CURE is slowed down. If not directly conscious, then indirectly. You know it is so, but see it as "a necessary evil"…
I think it's very telling to look at the diabetes epidemic in America. Children become overweight and get diabetes.
Diabetes is increasingly portrayed as "incurable - but there is hope!", Just like cancer. Diabetes is diabetes. But the doctrine is to avoid fats, which lead to increased cholesterol, so that the powerful sugar industry can continue to contaminate American food. Sugar is beginning to receive increasing attention - by independent science - as an important factor also in connection with cancer.
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 16, 2014 at 12:54 pm
@PerraJ
It is good that you seek to find the truth, but it is important to find the right one as well. It is not enough just to avoid polarized thinking. You have to be right too.
I do not think we will get that much further here and this track is going far from the side of the subject. In my opinion, not much of what Robert has written about research can lead to your conclusions.
I hope he also comments on what he thinks of your views on the cancer industry.
I read what you write about it in your blog. Even if society is rotten, it is not enough proof that researchers and large-scale industry want to preserve cancer for it to be a gigantic source of income.
And do not forget that anyone can write anything on blogs and make Youtube videos anyway.
Respond
Perra J says:
January 16, 2014 at 3:44 am
And do not forget that anyone can write anything on blogs and make Youtube videos anyway.
- And here is probably our hope…
And when it comes to being right: I have based a large part of my presentation here on Ralf Sundberg's work. Recommend reading his book, which is very well backed by facts and references. Here is another review of it:
http://newsvoice.se/2013/01/04/recension-av-forskningsfusket-sa-blir-du-lurad-av-kost-och-lakemedelsindustrin/ But only YOU can ultimately decide who is right.
We can leave the cancer industry there for this time. There is research in this area which, of course, lacks the enormous financial resources the industry has, but which is independent and focused on BOTA, and therefore more serious. But there are probably some jokers too, unfortunately…
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 17, 2014 at 01:56
@PerraJ
Yes, that you can not find anything in Ralph Sundberg's book that supports your conspiracy theories that the establishment does not want to find a cure for cancer, I understood and then I understand that you also want to leave the cancer issue there.
I do not think you will find anything that supports homeopathy in that book, which is still the subject of the thread. But it's clear. Many people use the tactic that if you can find something wrong somewhere in the research, you try to get it to prove that something else is wrong or that any conspiracy theory is true.
The latest plane crash does not prove that flying carpets work.
I still hope Robert comments on what he thinks about your cancer conspiracy. If he also thinks that most people in charge of research do not want cancer to be cured for financial reasons?
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 17, 2014 at 02:16
I also see that Pia Hallertz, who did the book review in Newsvoice in her final clip, is trying to make the book strike a blow for more alternative medicine instead of school medicine. Something that is hardly Ralph Sundberg's opinion. But a common trick is that when someone calls for better research, they try to make it speak for more alternative medicine.
Much like criticism of the airlines' safety speaks for a return to zeppeliners.
Perra J says:
January 17, 2014 at 10:03 am
@Mats
But gravel fuckers. I just thought this conversation would swell A LITTLE WELL a lot if we also floated out on the cancer issue. Because it's a big topic. That was just why. I felt that now that we have nailed every single study that exists on homeopathy, one could balance it by doing the same thing. established medicine, and came to think of Ralf Sundberg, because he did something in that way.
But OK. I do not know if my explanation of the cancer is particularly conspiratorial. However, I know that the cancer industry - like so much else - consists of limited companies, which must report profits and grow. That they must therefore ensure that patients return and that the growth of new patients is secured.
A commercial industry, among other things. And that is also what Ralf Sundberg describes in his book. I do not know if we need to differ so much in the pharmaceutical and cancer industry in terms of THAT aspect, but I have seen that people have previously called it conspiracy theories when someone hinted at this. the pharmaceutical industry. But now there are very many (including VoF?) Who have begun to admit that the pharmaceutical industry is actually corrupt. Robert Hahn has stated that you can achieve the desired results by withholding certain information. Exactly what Sundberg did. And they are not conspiracy theorists. Or?
There really are conspiracy theories. Some are pure arc. Some have a certain truth content. But there are also "conspiracy theories" as a mental concept, to play out when you do not want to have your peace of mind disturbed. A convenient way to sort out disturbing thoughts, and at the same time feel a little intelligent, and critical thinking.
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 17, 2014 at 01:38
Just as Anders Gustavsson writes further down, the discussion has derailed and we will not go any further.
I only state once again that you will not find any support for the cancer conspiracies in Ralf Sundberg's book. But if you snowball into sites like Newsvoice, you can draw any conclusions. It is good that there are people who fight research fraud. Unfortunately, there are always those who try to abuse the spirit to interpret their opinions in support of their own crazy conclusions.
Yes, the pharmaceutical industry is a limited company. There are many alternative companies as well. Those who are not are usually the most frugal, as limited companies have certain requirements for transparency.
That said, flight safety review does not prove that zeppelin and hot air balloons are better and safer alternatives. Only that the aircraft must be made even safer.
Now, I do not write more about this because I do not believe in the slightest that your authorities support your interpretation of their writings, except Newsvoice.
But from what I can understand from the initial question by Christina J about the studies on homeopathy showing that it can be considered effective against cancer, Robert does not seem to consider that to be the case.
Perra J says:
January 17, 2014 at 02:44
Yes, we round off here. Thanks for a rewarding discussion! :-)
nanowire says:
January 17, 2014 at 3:53 am
@Perra J
Well, your statement that medical research is deliberately limited to not inventing cures is really conspiratorial as it requires a kind of cartel that must involve all researchers and decision makers in the field. It's conspiracy thinking about something.
Perra J says:
January 17, 2014 at 5:28 am
@nanowire:
Do you think we should spin on the thread?
I do not think it needs to be so "organized". Ordinary honest corruption rather.
A kind of disease that occurs in all hierarchical systems. The core of my theory is that
we are dealing with a hierarchical system, and where the very top does not consist of scientists, but rather businessmen. Science is thus not free.
Agneta says:
January 17, 2014 at 06:59
You definitely have a point where Perra J that it is not just the will to help people to better health that governs the drug manufacturers. Like all large organizations, their own survival becomes most important do not know if you need to call it corruption. It's more like a law of nature!
Helge says:
January 16, 2014 at 1:05 am
Interesting video with the head of Cochranne in the Nordics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1LQiow_ZIQ(Danish speech with English text.)
Respond
Perra J says:
January 16, 2014 at 3:48 am
Very interesting, will see when I get more time, will return…
Respond
Anders Gustafsson says:
January 17, 2014 at 08:35
Is there anyone more than me who thinks that the whole thing has derailed and become a collection of conspiracy theories? Shouldn't the discussion be about the scientific state of evidence for homeopathy?
Respond
Agneta says:
January 17, 2014 at 02:48
Do not know how much it is conspiracy that lies behind the fact that there is no good cure for cancer, also think the traditional view of disease in general and cancer in particular is too narrow and too limited? Maybe you need to try to understand more about what makes us sick or rather what it is that makes some people stay healthy and try to understand more about how (self) healing takes place.
Respond
nanowire says:
January 17, 2014 at 04:16
@Agneta
That's really the case. The old traditional view of disease, which today is represented by alternative medicine, is indeed a dead end. To find a cure for e.g. cancer, as you write, we basically need to understand the organism. The way that has so far been most effective in understanding phenomena at a basic level is scientific research.
Respond
Christina Johansson says:
January 17, 2014 at 11:39 am
Actually, this thread has derailed, but since a friend of my mother got cancer and thought it was a good idea to try to cure it herself with an alternative method and too late realized that the method did not work, I can not help it to comment on this by saying that researchers do NOT WANT to find better methods,
There is a difference between research cheating and research cheating. The research fraud that most often occurs and is revealed is when a company tries to push an ineffective preparation on the market. Pfizer was revealed for this last year and no one can say with the best will in the world that the alternative hassles would be a bit more moral on that point.
The research cheat that I hardly think occurs is that someone discovers an effective preparation and then does not even want anyone to test it. That you obscure something that works. It would be like saying no to a secure source of income.
Especially when it comes to a social scourge such as cancer that even the directors of medicines and their children can suffer from.
In other words, I think the risk of a company launching a useless cancer medicine with research fraud is a thousand times greater than burning a study on a prescription that can be proven to work.
The classic that no one wants to launch a preparation that can not be patented falls immediately. Patents cost a lot of money through lots of research. Patents do not come in Corn Flakes packages. If pharmaceutical companies could make lots of money on their own variants of paracetamol, they would make even more money on a cancer drug that has already been discovered.
Should any small freezer discover something that cures cancer that cannot be patented, the pharmaceutical companies will not hide it. They start making it, for the same reason that they start making their own variants of paracetamol and other things that the patent is based on.
Some partners in pharmaceutical companies are also partners in banks and insurance companies. They are losing more money on cancer than the pharmaceutical companies are believed to gain from it.
But to be at least one percent topic on this thread;
Unlike some homeopaths, Robert has not advocated homeopathy as effective against cancer.
Respond
ruben says:
January 18, 2014 at 11:42 am
But if one ignores cancer. What does this article say about the studies on homeopathy that have been done. Based on Klaus Linde's meta-analysis from 1997, Edzard Ernst's meta-analysis in 2002, Cucherat's "Type II error", Shang published in 1995.
I have no knowledge of scientific methods other than the little I read. It is obvious that dubious methods want to steer the public into the perception that it is ineffective. It is obvious that one does not want to approve homeopathy despite the fact that it has shown results better than placebo in the studies that have been taken up.
Robert Hahn believes in the article that there is no doubt about the effect, if one interprets the studies scientifically.
Nor can I see any of the critics pointing directly to what scientific errors Robert Hahn makes in the interpretations.
It gives me the conviction that there is a will in some circles to kill homeopathy for reasons unknown to me. If studies clearly show that it has an effect, then still bad or non-existent curiosity is shown in the world of school medicine hugs.
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 18, 2014 at 02:07
What he has opposed is that, especially some people, have said that there are no studies that show statistically better results than placebo. He has shown in this blog that there are a number who do it. On the other hand, it is also admitted in those studies that more are needed before homeopathy can be proven to be effective. Robert also admits that there is none
scientific explanation model for homeopathy.
We should also not forget that there are many, many more failed studies on homeopathy and that many of them with slightly better results are not registered, which means that you do not know how many you have done before with worse results.
That doctors choose the best-proven methods against dangerous diseases is probably easy to understand. Considering how cheap homeopathy would be, I have a hard time believing that the stingy county council politicians would not rejoice if they found it effective. They decide over the doctors.
Then we always get to read and hear how school medicine examines and criticizes itself. Most recently, the Medical Products Agency will examine the overconsumption of paracetamol.
How often do we see any self-criticism from such an "honest" alternative industry?
Respond
ruben says:
January 18, 2014 at 11:10 am
That larger studies are needed. Is this what you mean that Robert answers?
“The authors state that larger studies are needed, and this is almost always written. It is a kind of mantra in these contexts. If you work with clear effects, however, you should know that you do not get an ethical permit to make the studies bigger. Ethics states that a study should not be made larger than what is required to obtain significant differences, in this case between treatment and placebo. That's why you can not (like Shang) make a funnel plot where you mix studies with completely different expectations of treatment effect. ”
Moreover:
There is no scientific explanation model for homeopathy, no, but it clearly does not need an explanation model (if I have understood correctly). Soon it can probably be explained as well.
Have no idea how many failed studies have been done in homeopathy compared to failed school medicine.
Yes, doctors should choose the best proven methods. I think most people agree on that. But keep in mind that healthcare uses many methods that are not proven in scientific studies.
You also write:
"Considering how cheap homeopathy would be, I have a hard time believing that the stingy county council politicians would not rejoice if they found it effective. They decide over the doctors. "
Agree with that, but do not think it is that simple. Even county council politicians are bound by what is considered (right or wrong) political correctness. They oppose alternatives, because their immediate surroundings expect it. They do not want to freeze their feet, which is human.
Of course, one can wish that the criticism is fair, but I can not judge that. Should read the book Forskningsfusket so maybe I get more "meat on my bones".
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 19, 2014 at 01:52
@Ruben
Quote “Agree with that, but do not think it is that simple. Even county council politicians are bound by what is considered (right or wrong) political correctness. They oppose alternatives, because their immediate surroundings expect it. They do not want to freeze their feet, which is human. " End quote.
Can you give a more detailed explanation of what immediate environment it is that requires politicians to oppose alternatives, even if they were proven and cheaper?
Do you mean by freezing your feet that they can lose their places?
How then do they dare to dismantle the health care system so much that there will be gigantic demonstrations both among the people and the health care employees, ie the voters? If the voters get angry enough, they will really have to freeze their feet.
So give a good explanation of who decides that they should skimp on the absurd in most things, except to use cheaper care methods (if they would be effective).
Preferably with good sources so that it does not appear as another uncoated conspiracy theory.
Feel free to read "Forskningsfusket" but you will not find any support for introducing homeopathy in healthcare there.
Respond
ruben says:
January 21, 2014 at 09:23
Hello again! Starts responding from the end.
No, quite right. "Research cheating" gives a little more substance to thoughts that the term "scientific evidence" is not always the "scientific evidence" one refers to.
I prefer to avoid sources because I do not want to involve anyone to be held accountable for my philosophy on the subject. I guess I'm also a kind of source like you and all the other commentators.
The explanation of who decides that lansting should save, I can not give with any definite direction. I was not in on it right away. Maybe I was vague?
Yes, if healthcare is dismantled more, it can probably start to be a troublesome dissatisfaction. It is quite difficult for many county council hospitals, I understand.
Yes, freezing if the feet, I mean from being uncomfortable in their situation until being able to get the kick.
There is a general countermeasure that has permeated school and education that homeopathy or other alternatives must not be talked about seriously. You are trained in that perception. From preschool to university. Yet none of those who say so have examined homeopathy / alternatives with curious seriousness. So seriously from my personal point of view, you are rarely taken seriously in some circles if you say that homeopathy cured me. I'm a scam because I claim to be healthy because. homeopathy. So a person's personal testimony can be crushed and declared incompetent. People that critics should follow in the same footsteps for 20 years before judging.
I do not think many people deliberately oppose, it is in the air not to touch the subject. It is a bit taboo to talk positively about it. It's a kind of indoctrination, I think.
Ragnvi Kjellin says:
January 18, 2014 at 10:35 am
The introduction of evidence-based medicine revolutionized the development of medicine, now it was finally possible to get a clear message about which methods and medicines worked and which did not.
But the method is not infallible. If you do as Robert Hahn believes you should do, namely not to take into account the reasonableness of the tested hypothesis, you risk ending up very wrong.
Whatever you research and no matter how crazy the hypothesis is, you will get results. But if the basic premises are incorrect, the results will also be incorrect. Take for example a mathematician who calculates Pi as 4.13, he will get results but of course incorrect ones. The same with the astronomer who thinks that the sun revolves around the earth or the chemist who reckons that hydrogen has an atomic mass of 1.1u (should be 1.01u) etc ..
Studies have shown that a large proportion of existing research reports are flawed and often the conclusions are incorrect. If the tested hypothesis is also unreasonable, the risk of error will be enormous, if not 100%. Therefore, the bar must be set higher when testing unreasonable statements (if you should even test them) DO NOT lower the one that Hahn wants to do.
That is, it is very likely that the "positive" homeopathy studies are false positive.
Respond
Robert Hahn says:
January 18, 2014 at 11:20 am
The problem in this story is that a drive, controlled by VoF, is systematically lying about the studies of homeopathy that exist. Believing in scientific studies at all is a different and more philosophical question. But then one should push one's skepticism towards scientific methodology (here: type double-blind randomized trial) in the foreground and stop referring to scientific studies when arguing.
Respond
Anders Gustafsson says:
January 19, 2014 at 02:57
@Robert
"The problem with this story is that a drive, controlled by VoF, is systematically lying about the studies of homeopathy that exist."
I do not want to deny that there is a pretty healthy lie about homeopathy and as I have already pointed out, it is wrong to say that there is a lack of studies and especially RCT ditto about homeopathy, but it is quite uninteresting. Far more interesting is to study the studies systematically as you, Linde and Shang did. Mainly by looking at the quality of each study. The conclusions that most people draw, even those that are positive about homeopathy, such as Klaus Linde, are that one cannot conclude that homeopathy works.
Even more problematic is the fact that different studies are presented on different homeopathy sites as evidence that homeopathy can cure cancer, AIDS or replace vaccinations or antibiotics. The problem is that several of these sites use your name and title in their marketing. The reader can easily get the impression that you as a person are behind everything that, for example, Marina Szöges writes. Is not this a problem?
Respond
Marina Szöges says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:07 am
Anders Gustafsson. Where else do you think I used Robert Hahn's name and title as marketing?
In addition, it is not marketing that Dagens Homeopathy deals with. This is information about homeopathy. And since Hahn writes interestingly about homeopathy, it is of great interest to tell about it at Dagens Homeopati. No wonder.
But ok Anders Gustafsson, tell me what I, according to you, have written and use Hahn's name and title. Send a link that proves what you claim I did. Up to proof now. But if I have not done something wrong, or alternatively change what is wrong, it is time for you to stop angling and slandering.
Respond
Perra J says:
January 22, 2014 at 01:15
It is rather pointless to discuss whether homeopathy is proven to work or not. One can always find objections, and the debate leads no one anywhere, it only builds up two severely polarized camps. And then it becomes harder than ever to find the objective truth. What we should discuss is whether a researcher is free to say anything. That is also what emerges from Robert Hahn's description. For example, what drove Cucherat to omit just over 96% of the studies he had available? What led to the omission of the high-quality Taylor study? Was it really the case that these studies were not found to be valid? Or is the truth that the researcher who would present a result in favor of homeopathy can have his career ruined?
It is a great thing to find a scientific truth. It is an even bigger thing to challenge the current paradigm. When it comes to power, science is out of the question. Galileo was forced into public abdication. Can something similar happen today?
Respond
Mats Blomqvist says:
January 22, 2014 at 02:02
Yes, what does Robert think of this? Does he think that anyone who would carry out a study that could not be debunked would have his career ruined? Would no other research team dare to repeat it and test it again? Could the same thing apply to other discoveries as well?
Given Robert's experience as a researcher, I'm really interested in what he's saying about this and ffa a lot of the serious things that have been said before. For example about cancer research. It is also his blog.
We now know that he does not like VOF and their interpretations, but I think it is sad if he does not also share his views on the other side and their accusations about how it works within his area. Is the research world as false as many claim? There have been many serious allegations here. Are they absolutely right?
If not here's a new product just for you!
Respond
Perra J says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:14 am
This blog is like an old volcano. It is thought to be inactive, extinguished… but then suddenly comes a HORRIBLE eruption, and then comes again an eternity of silence.
I completely agree with you in what you say here, Mats. We'll see if Hahn pleases to answer…
I read a post on Lars Bern's blog Antropocene, where he illustrates based on his own experience, how science actually works in reality, which obviously does not agree well with how it SHOULD work. Here - in the field of global warming - we again see an example of science that must adapt:
http://antropocene.se/2014/january/vetenskapens-forfall.html Respond
Helge says:
January 25, 2014 at 3:21 am
VoF has nothing to do with science. The leading skeptical body
James Randis CSI describes ACSH as one:
"Consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to nutrition, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, environment and health."
under the heading “Health and Psychology” (
http://www.csicop.org/resources)
"Mother Jones" has a different view based on ACSH's own documents, which were leaked to "MJ":
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising , and several of Randi's closest employees are affiliated with ACSH.
So that the skeptic movement is nothing more than a propaganda organization (Read Advertising Agency) for industrial interests has not changed.
Respond
Comment
THE EDITOR
My new blog is here!
May 2, 2011 9 Comments
Hey all! Now I switch to roberthahn.nu simply because it will be easier to find the page! What we will be doing in 2011 is i.a. traps in science. Many who wrote to me… Read more
Get an email when the blog is updated
Your email address:
Latest posts
My scientific article on homeopathy
Men of Darkness at the University
Ethics forgotten at the Academic Hospital
Memories of past lives 5
My friend killed his parents
File
Latest comments
Weekend on My scientific article on homeopathy
Perra J on My scientific article on homeopathy
Mats Blomqvist on My scientific article on homeopathy
Perra J on My scientific article on homeopathy
ruben on My scientific article on homeopathy
Marina Szöges on My scientific article on homeopathy
Anders Gustafsson on My scientific article on homeopathy
Mats Blomqvist on My scientific article on homeopathy
Robert Hahn on My Scientific Article on Homeopathy
ruben on My scientific article on homeopathy
Return to top of page
Copyright 2011 Robert Hahn · Prod: sasser.net · Log in
More about this source text
Source text required for additional translation information
Send feedback
Side panels
[*/quote*]
