Tara Smith Speaks

What a terrific interview. Thanks for sharing it.

The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements. In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator." It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most." The memo also noted that The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual specified the phrasing "Big Bang theory." Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's boss, said in an interview yesterday that for that reason, it should be used in all NASA documents. The Deutsch memo was provided by an official at NASA headquarters who said he was upset with the effort to justify changes to descriptions of science by referring to politically charged issues like intelligent design. Senior NASA officials did not dispute the message's authenticity. Mr. Wild declined to be interviewed; Mr. Deutsch did not respond to e-mail or phone messages. On Friday evening, repeated queries were made to the White House about how a young presidential appointee with no science background came to be supervising Web presentations on cosmology and interview requests to senior NASA scientists.

DS: Is bioterrorism or a modern pandemic a real threat to the US? TS: Well yes, especially as 45 million Americans lack health insurance!

Comment #77668 Posted by Beer on February 5, 2006 02:37 PM (e) Check this out: Faith Based NASA

Yes, the large number of uninsured Americans DOES represent a national security threat.

Think it through. Seed 45 million Americans with a pandemic flu. That's a lot of people....a lot of people who are gonna need care. With that many people, you really don't think the national economy ISN'T going to grind to a halt as we deal with their illness?

And as the illnesses spreads and develops, there's going to be a paralysis of decision making, I guaruntee it. There's going to be a precious day AT LEAST debating what we are going to do with people who can't pay for their health care (if they haven't already flooded the emergency rooms of local hospitals), and in that time, we've lost any chance of keeping a handle on the spread. Meanwhile, the underinsured and uninsured keep circulating, spreading the illnesses (which could have been headed off if there was a more widespread network to handle them).

Bah, preview! preview!

Anyhoo, as I mentioned in the interview, our best line of defense against outbreaks--which includes purposeful ones, such as the release of a bioterrorism agent--is good surveillance. With ~15% of our population lacking access to basic health care, they're essentially invisible from a surveillance standpoint until they check into an emergency room with serious illness. This can set us back immensely, and time is of the essence when dealing with these kind of outbreaks. It's always best to catch it when it's a local event so that appropriate measures can be taken to *prevent* its spread--it's much harder to play catch-up after it's already all over the place. Having so many people that aren't routinely seen by a medical professional places us all at greater risk of infectious disease.

this is a test post I've been blocked from posting here, unsure why

the answer must be that i can post from my stationary computer but not my laptop. this is beyond my small brain to figure out.

Pro,

Were you aware of this.

Comment #77738 Posted by Flash Gordon on February 5, 2006 08:37 PM (e) DS: Is bioterrorism or a modern pandemic a real threat to the US? TS: Well yes, especially as 45 million Americans lack health insurance!

What amazes me, quite frankly, is all of these people who are in wild denial of very obvious basic facts having NO plan at all for when things happen.

Though, on the upside, now we can blame ID for the bird flu, AIDS, and people not having health care.

An interesting and enjoyable interview Tara.

Even though my educational background is not in biology I usually have rough idea of what real biologists are talking about when they give lectures or talks eg. yourself or Dr. Miller recently. The strange thing is, I usually haven't a clue what creationist biologists are saying as seem to make everything sound so complicated !

Like your mum, I to have an incurable disease Tara (I suffer from Ulcerative Colitis) and have had to rely on medical science for something akin to a normal life style (the symptoms of the disease are very debilitating). After some very severe drug treatment I eventually opted for surgery and I now feel reasonably well.

I also flirted with alternative medicine's for a while, in desperation I think (homeopathy), but this proved to be useless and a total waste of time and money. All I can say is thank goodness we don't need private health insurance in this country (yet). I reckon if I lived in the US I would be insurable.

The thing that frightens me about creation science is that since they are so far out of date in other scientific fields eg. their geology (ie flood geology) is over 150 years out of date, creationist astronomy is completely off (the earth was created before the sun, denying recent discoveries like the kuiper belt etc.) what happens when we get to Biology and in particular medical science. As someone who has had to rely on this for a normal lifestyle it scares me to think that they could one day get their way and turn this back 150 years as well !

Bush is also seeking savings by trimming the growth of spending in Medicare, the government's giant health care program for the elderly and disabled, by $35.9 billion over five years, and making similar reductions in a number of other benefit programs.

And as the current administration in the US seems intent to attempt to continue to cut back on public health funding, we may find that this number grows over the next few years rather than shrinks.

It's unbelievable, isn't it? I want to know how someone so
under qualified was appointed to make those kind of decisions,
and, more importantly, why this administration believes they
have the right to censor and/or edit anything from the scientific
community. Scientists are driven by the search for truth,
and they shouldn't be hampered by politicians whose only purpose
is religion-driven agenda. Can you imagine the BBC making these
kinds of edits? No, neither can I. In a decade or two we'll
wonder why the U.S. isn't leading the way in science and technology
anymore. But what else could these policies lead to? - blocking
of the immigration of scientists and students into the country,
general dumbing down of the population through the editing of
science, constant battle against science through frivolous lawsuit.

In a decade or two?

Regarding the retardation of scientific spending in this country, I would argue there are already several fields (biology being one) where the US is already no longer a leader.

To me, this may be one of those "over the waterfall" sort of issues. Which is to say, we're already off the drop by the time we notice the problem, and by then, it's too late to do anything about it. Tara's concerns about a major pandemic illustrate that - in our current situation, by the time we realize something is very wrong, it's too late to do anything to stop it.

"The most meaningful activity in which a human being can be engaged is one that is directly related to human evolution. This is true because human beings now play an active and critical role not only in the process of their own evolution but in the survival and evolution of all living things. Awareness of this places upon human beings a responsibility for their participation in and contribution to the process of evolution. If humankind would accept and acknowledge this responsibility and become creatively engaged in the process of metabiological evolution consciously as well as unconsciously, a new reality would emerge, and a new age would be born" -- Jonas Salk wrote, Anatomy of Reality

Why does the USA have no equivalent to the UK's NHS?
Is there a good reason?

Posted by Stephen Elliott Why does the USA have no equivalent to the UK's NHS? Is there a good reason?

In my original post I meant to say I would be un-insurable. Since health insurance is surely like all other forms of insurance i.e. the number of claims a person makes will affect his/her premiums. I reckon if I lived in the US mine would be sky-high.

Stephen: I think the reason why the U.S. (or other countries eg the Europeans have social insurance) does not have an NHS is due to tax reasons. Like some people in this country, no-one wants to pay for it. There seems to be a bigger resistance in the US to paying tax than in the UK (remember the comments of George Bush senior"Read my lips,no new taxes") and how they eventually came back to haunt him.

I remember a number of years back seeing a documentary about the limited facilities available to people who for some reason or another did not have health insurance (some disabled people or the very poor for example), and I was quite shocked.16hrs. waiting to be seen in A&E ! I always feel that private health insurance is fine if you are well but if you take ill the premiums will surely rise.

The NHS might not be perfect but at least it's free at the point of delivery !

I like the idea of the NHS. I do not mind paying for it. But I do wish it targeted slightly differently.

Personally I would prefer that it treated people with illnesses as number 1 priority, things such as cosmetic/lifestyle surgery should be rare on the NHS.

What I mean is that breast enhancements or reductions (example) should take second place to people with an illness.

Why does the USA have no equivalent to the UK's NHS? Is there a good reason?

Only slightly off-topic:

A study published in Health Affairs in 2005 showed that half of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. involved medical bills. Many of these people had health insurance at the time their health problems developed, but either they weren't fully covered, or else they lost their insurance (or at least their employer-subsidized premiums) when they got too sick or too badly injured to work.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2005/02/22/high_medical_bills_donthave_to_lead_to_bankruptcy/

For a couple of years, my husband and I paid our health insurance costs "out of pocket". As reasonably healthy adults in our forties, the two of us paid about US $3300 a year for the most basic coverage possible -- no prescriptions, a large co-pay for routine visits, etc. I like to joke that we finally got our money's worth in early 2003, when I developed a nasty chronic-pain problem that required two surgeries, one of them major. We still had significant out-of-pocket costs, especially since (a.) one anesthesiology practice in the Kalamazoo, MI area, where we were living at the time, has a virtual monopoly over the local hospitals and (b.) that practice didn't have any previous arrangement with our insurance provider. Incidentally, the proprietor of that practice is a local M.D. who is also a prominent "pro-life" member of the state legislature.

We were able to weather that one, although recovering from surgery put my job prospects on prolonged hold. For people in low-paying jobs with little or no insurance or sick leave, things are a lot more difficult. They have to drag themselves in to work, whether healthy, hurt, or sick. And when they have to go to work with contagious illnesses -- well, we're back where we started a few posts back.

For people in low-paying jobs with little or no insurance or sick leave, things are a lot more difficult. They have to drag themselves in to work, whether healthy, hurt, or sick. And when they have to go to work with contagious illnesses --- well, we're back where we started a few posts back.

Hi Tara,

I enjoyed much of your interview, and I couldn't agree with you more about the need to plug the health insurance gap. But I was disappointed by the parochial outlook you displayed towards alternative medicine in this interview. I think people who are serious about either science or the public health need to dig a little deeper.

For instance, the Spanish Flu pandemic occurred during a period when homeopathy was still widely practiced. In the wake of the epidemic, the American Institute of Homeopathy published the results of a study of death rates in homeopathic hospitals and their conventional counterparts. They found that 24,000 conventionally treated patients had a death rate of 28.2%, while 26,000 patients with homeopathy had a death rate of 1.05%. (Cited in "Bird Flu Threat," Homeopathy Today December 2005, p. 30)

Anyone is welcome to dub these results post hoc, ergo propter hoc, but at what expense to the people who could be saved by homeopathic treatment if an outbreak of bird flu erupts in the near future?

To continue with the example of homeopathy, as just one branch of alternative medicine: there are people who are seriously investigating its efficacy and its effectiveness, for instance at the program in integrative medicine at the University of Arizona. Research like this is desperately under funded.

Yet the people who carry out this kind of research -- and indeed, homeopaths in general -- are under attack in ways that are all too eerily reminiscent of the attacks on evolution, whether it's the argument from incredulity ("This couldn't possibly work!"), flawed studies (even appearing in journals that should know better, such as Lancet 2005;366:726-732, dissected in J Altern Complement Med, 2005;11:751-785], or outright ignorance (for example, the notion that homeopathy is primarily based on highly diluted solutions, rather than the principal that like cures like). How can medical science advance in a climate that so closely resembles the miasma of creationist attacks on evolution?

Finally, I am puzzled by your remarks about the death of Christine Maggiore's daughter. If this is anything but straight-up post hoc, ergo propter hoc thinking, I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why. In any case, the next time you see fit to disparage alternative medicine, I hope you'll do so with enough depth and rigor to contribute to meaningful debate.

Regards,
Richard Pfeiffer

In my previous post, I naturally meant to say:

"They found that 24,000 conventionally treated patients had a death rate of 28.2%, while 26,000 patients treated with homeopathy had a death rate of 1.05%."

Richard

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."

Yet the people who carry out this kind of research --- and indeed, homeopaths in general --- are under attack in ways that are all too eerily reminiscent of the attacks on evolution

For people in low-paying jobs with little or no insurance or sick leave, things are a lot more difficult. They have to drag themselves in to work, whether healthy, hurt, or sick. And when they have to go to work with contagious illnesses ...

Yet the people who carry out this kind of research --- and indeed, homeopaths in general --- are under attack in ways that are all too eerily reminiscent of the attacks on evolution, whether it's the argument from incredulity ("This couldn't possibly work!"), flawed studies (even appearing in journals that should know better, such as Lancet 2005;366:726-732, dissected in J Altern Complement Med, 2005;11:751-785], or outright ignorance (for example, the notion that homeopathy is primarily based on highly diluted solutions, rather than the principal that like cures like). How can medical science advance in a climate that so closely resembles the miasma of creationist attacks on evolution?

Steve S
Hate to say this but er... rather tacky play on words don't you think?

tacky? I thought it was clever beyond measure, myself.

Finally, I am puzzled by your remarks about the death of Christine Maggiore's daughter. If this is anything but straight-up post hoc, ergo propter hoc thinking, I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why.

In any case, the next time you see fit to disparage alternative medicine, I hope you'll do so with enough depth and rigor to contribute to meaningful debate.

One more thing--I find it a bit ironic that you compare the treatment of alternative medicine by the medical community to the treatment of evolution by creationists. I think about it differently. Alternative medicine practioners seem to want the same respect as "mainstream" doctors, without going through the rigors of actually showing that their treatments work--kinda like how IDists want to get their "theory" taught without having any data to support it. Both are looked upon critically by scientists, all the while being pushed in the media and the political arena--sometimes by outright con men. You want the same backdoor entrance into the medical community that ID wants into the scientific community. You want in, show that it works *first*, get accepted later.

They found that 24,000 conventionally treated patients had a death rate of 28.2%, while 26,000 patients with homeopathy had a death rate of 1.05%. (Cited in "Bird Flu Threat," Homeopathy Today December 2005, p. 30)

Tara, I think you are being far to kind with your comments on homeopathic medicine. To most doctors it is considered "quackery"and the many studies that have been shown to favor homeopathy were later proven to be seriously flawed.These articles were taken from several UK medical publications

This is the third blow in a row for homeopaths in the second half of 2005. After the influential Lancet meta-analysis in August, which was a disaster for homeopathy, in early September the most renowned consumer protection agency in Germany, the Stiftung Warentest in Berlin, published the new edition of its alternative medicine handbook (Die Andere Medizin), evaluating a number of alternative therapies. The authors of the handbook, the contents of which were reviewed by Edzard Ernst, state that most of the alternative therapies evaluated are useless, if not noxious; only one third of all examined applications of all the alternative therapies listed in the book showed some positive effect. That is, much less than one third of these alternative therapies are effective, because not all therapies have been tested for all indications. Moreover, and unsurprisingly, most of the positive results were obtained in the case of various relaxation techniques such as autogenic training, yoga, meditation, hypnosis, and so on. Along with this research comes an article in the Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Association. It's titled, "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy," authored by researchers at the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.

Beginning by saying that "...specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible," the paper suggests that bias might have entered into the conduct and the reporting of trials of homeopathy. To investigate this possibility, the authors considered placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy identified by a comprehensive search of the available literature covering nineteen electronic databases, reference lists of relevant papers, and contacts with experts. They randomly selected trials in conventional medicine matched to homoeopathy trials, and extracted data from reported outcomes that indicated benefit. Appropriately, they assigned greater strength to trials that were performed double-blind and with adequate randomization.

Analyzing 110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials, they found that the smaller trials and those of lower quality indicated more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. They concluded that experimental biases were present in placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and of conventional medicine. Allowing for that bias, what remained was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding, they concluded, is compatible with the probability that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

To the ramparts, homeopaths! The forces of reason are closing in!

I'm confused,
If homeopathy is treating like with like and it was used to treat Spanish flu in 1918 then does that mean Spanish flu victims were treated with MORE flu. Seems to me like giving someone more of the same disease they are already suffering from might, I'm only saying might, be a bad idea. Anyway, Mr Pfeiffer, go here:
http://amr2you.blogspot.com/2004/07/anti-quackery_17.html

I'm confused, If homeopathy is treating like with like and it was used to treat Spanish flu in 1918 then does that mean Spanish flu victims were treated with MORE flu. Seems to me like giving someone more of the same disease they are already suffering from might, I'm only saying might, be a bad idea.

Homeopathic remedies (also called homeopathics) are a system of medicine based on three principles: * Like cures like For example, if the symptoms of your cold are similar to poisoning by mercury, then mercury would be your homeopathic remedy. * Minimal Dose The remedy is taken in an extremely dilute form; normally one part of the remedy to around 1,000,000,000,000 parts of water. * The Single Remedy No matter how many symptoms are experienced, only one remedy is taken, and that remedy will be aimed at all those symptoms.

You're sure you're quoting those numbers correctly?? They say the first group had a death rate of 28.2%, not maybe 2.82%? The overall mortality rate for the Spanish flu was only ~2.5%, so I find it very, very tough to believe that a cohort of 24,000 people had 10x the mortality rate of the general population. I'd really like to read that original article.

One more thing---I find it a bit ironic that you compare the treatment of alternative medicine by the medical community to the treatment of evolution by creationists. I think about it differently. Alternative medicine practitioners seem to want the same respect as "mainstream" doctors, without going through the rigors of actually showing that their treatments work---kinda like how IDists want to get their "theory" taught without having any data to support it. Both are looked upon critically by scientists, all the while being pushed in the media and the political arena---sometimes by outright con men. You want the same backdoor entrance into the medical community that ID wants into the scientific community. You want in, show that it works *first*, get accepted later.

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."

Homeopathic remedies (also called homeopathics) are a system of medicine based on three principles: * Like cures like For example, if the symptoms of your cold are similar to poisoning by mercury, then mercury would be your homeopathic remedy. * Minimal Dose The remedy is taken in an extremely dilute form; normally one part of the remedy to around 1,000,000,000,000 parts of water. * The Single Remedy No matter how many symptoms are experienced, only one remedy is taken, and that remedy will be aimed at all those symptoms.

They have a strong commitment to proving homeopathy works in language that can convince anyone who hasn't decided a priori that it just can't.

— Richard Pfeiffer

* Minimal Dose The remedy is taken in an extremely dilute form; normally one part of the remedy to around 1,000,000,000,000 parts of water.

Most homeopaths value therapeutic success over what they feel are idealized tests that cloud things rather than clarifying them.

In other words, they are looking for real-world results, and feel that these results in their dozens, then hundreds, and then thousands are of far greater value than any RCT.

In other words, they value "tests" of effectiveness over tests of efficacy.

The third part of the answer is that homeopaths have been practicing medicine that worked since the days when conventional doctors were administering what we now clearly see as poisons. Why should a medical system that is relatively new, that may not produce better results, be in charge of one that has been so long established and has proved its mettle in millions of cases for about two hundred years.

In other words, they value "tests" of effectiveness over tests of efficacy.

The first part is that there is a growing body of homeopathic researchers who are determined to design and carry out studies that really test homeopathy as it is practiced, yet will satisfy the most ardent opponents of homeopathy. The foremost examples I know of are the people at the University of Arizona program in integrative medicine and David Reilly.

They have a strong commitment to proving homeopathy works in language that can convince anyone who hasn't decided a priori that it just can't.

It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy.

The second part of the answer to the relationship of homeopathy to mainstream medicine is that homeopathy is an empirically-based form of medicine... And just to reassure those who are wondering why anyone in their right mind might want to take Spanish Flu (which would not be the most likely remedy for Flu), that's one of the most important --- and controversial --- aspects of homeopathy. The dilution mentioned in the "minimal dose" principle is so great that, in general, none of the original substance is likely to remain.

It's hard enough to get rid of bias in interpreting results if you don't have a strong commitment to a particular outcome---and that's true for both orthodox and alternative medicine. I teach my students that you commit to the process, not to the outcome, and that you go where the evidence takes you. Like I said, even in that mindset, bias is stubborn and very hard to get rid of. If I were evaluating an article where I knew that the author had a strong commitment to "proving" a particular outcome, I would go over the methodology section of that article with a fine-toothed comb---and again, that's equally true for any type of medicine.

The foremost examples I know of are the people at the University of Arizona program in integrative medicine and David Reilly. They have a strong commitment to proving homeopathy works in language that can convince anyone who hasn't decided a priori that it just can't.

I can see I should have been more careful in my phrasing:

Homeopathy is falsifiable.

The problem is that no one on either side of the controversy has taken the trouble to design and carry out studies that demonstrate conclusively to anyone with an open mind whether homeopathy is valid or not. This is what the group at the University of Arizona is committed to.

Unfortunately, the recent Lancet study is flawed prima facie, but it is being trumpeted as the End of Homeopathy.

That is certainly not how science advances!

More tonight...

Homeopathy is falsifiable.

Please provide an empirically based mechanism for why water should have any properties related to a substance that is not actually in the water.

Unfortunately, the recent Lancet study is flawed prima facie, but it is being trumpeted as the End of Homeopathy.

— Richard Pfeiffer

Comment #78270 Posted by Richard Pfeiffer on February 8, 2006 12:04 PM I can see I should have been more careful in my phrasing: Homeopathy is falsifiable. The problem is that no one on either side of the controversy has taken the trouble to design and carry out studies that demonstrate conclusively to anyone with an open mind whether homeopathy is valid or not. This is what the group at the University of Arizona is committed to.

I can see I'm making lots lots of headway ;-)

If anyone is still interested in a real discussion about this, I'll be happy to finish the point I was trying to lay the basis for -- but until I hear otherwise, I'll assume there's no further interest.

I'd be interested in a response to a question that's been posed several times--how would you design the studies to test this?

I'd be interested in a response to a question that's been posed several times---how would you design the studies to test this?

In a study looking at the effects of homeopathic treatment on 62 patients with fibromyalgia, people who were on active, individualized homeopathic treatment had less pain and better overall health than the people taking a placebo, says Dr. Iris Bell, director of research in the program in integrative medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson. The research, which was funded through a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, was published in 2004 in Rheumatology, an international peer-review journal. Dr. Bell administered the homeopathic remedies to her patients by asking them to breathe the medicine through their noses. "Placebo and active remedies did not produce the same result in brain waves," Dr. Bell says. "There was more alpha brain wave activity in those people on active treatment."

Bell IR, Lewis DAI, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo. Rheumatology 2004;43: 577---582.

Many conventional medical doctors discount homeopathy, saying that the dilution and shaking process used to create the homeopathic remedies wouldn't leave any of the original substance in the medicine. However, it is the structure, not the composition, that determines the property of the water, says Rustum Roy, Evan Pugh professor of the solid state emeritus at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. Therefore, homeopathic medicine has the possibility of being effective, he says. Homeopathic practitioners say the more the substance is diluted, the more potent it becomes. "There is a phenomenon in material science called epitaxy, the way of transferring structure without transfer in composition," says Mr. Roy, who holds a doctorate in material science. "Chemists say homeopathy can't work because there is no composition change. That's wrong."

Tara-
I don't think you will get an obvious answer to that question except some carefully tailored "spin" that will limit obvious debunking.Oh it will seem eminently reasonable and will involve long discussion designed to avoid facing up to reality and will be self serving to the point of inanity but you will never get a straight answer from them.

Pseudoscience is IMMUNE to tests, debunking, insults, facts, evidence, statistics and logic. As long as fools exist and they have money, there will be some shark there to take it from them. And there will never be a shortage of supply of either of those quantities.

The amusing thing is that the tricks some peoples minds play on their owners have an uncanny commonality across a whole spectrum of irrational belief systems. It would seem that pseudoscience is becoming so deeply entrenched into the American social consciousness it IS reality for a great number of people.

For those interested I can recommend
Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience
by Martin Gardner

I just did a Google on Rustum Roy epitaxy, and there are 132 hits, many of which look like sober and serious solid state research papers.

"Placebo and active remedies did not produce the same result in brain waves," Dr. Bell says. "There was more alpha brain wave activity in those people on active treatment."

People who believe in something can fool themselves when they test it:
http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html

I hate to have to tell someone with all these qualifications that they're being an eejit, but really...

Epitaxy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epitaxy

At no point in epitaxy do you try to lay down a layer of material without something underneath it for it to go on. Which is more like it seems homeopathy does.

I will absolutely (And i dont use that word lightly) say that Prof Roy cannot show how and what structure is transferred to the water in homeopathy.

HHmm, as for the rheumatology thing, did they work out who were believers and non-believers in homeopathy?

The question I have here is "why is a brain wave relevant?" It doesn't necessarily speak to a cure. Could it be that this wasn't a double blind and Dr. Bell knew which substance she gave the patient and subconsciously signaled the patient with subtle cues of expectation? Could I produce an alpha wave spike by just smiling at someone?

Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo I. R. Bell1,2,3,4,6,8, D. A. Lewis, II9, A. J. Brooks3, G. E. Schwartz3,5,6, S. E. Lewis9, B. T. Walsh4 and C. M. Baldwin3,4,7,8 1Program in Integrative Medicine, 2Departments of Psychiatry, 3Psychology, 4Medicine, 5Neurology, 6Surgery, the 7Arizona Respiratory Center and the 8Mel and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public Health at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, and 9Saybrook Graduate School and Research Institute, San Francisco, California, USA. Correspondence to: I. R. Bell, Program in Integrative Medicine, The University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, 1249 N. Mountain Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA. Objective. To assess the efficacy of individualized classical homeopathy in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Methods. This study was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial of homeopathy. Community-recruited persons (N = 62) with physician-confirmed fibromyalgia (mean age 49 yr, S.D. 10 yr, 94% women) were treated in a homeopathic private practice setting. Participants were randomized to receive oral daily liquid LM (1/50 000) potencies with an individually chosen homeopathic remedy or an indistinguishable placebo. Homeopathic visits involved joint interviews and concurrence on remedy selection by two experienced homeopaths, at baseline, 2 months and 4 months (prior to a subsequent optional crossover phase of the study which is reported elsewhere). Tender point count and tender point pain on examination by a medical assessor uninvolved in providing care, self-rating scales on fibromyalgia-related quality of life, pain, mood and global health at baseline and 3 months, were the primary clinical outcome measures for this report. Results. Fifty-three people completed the treatment protocol. Participants on active treatment showed significantly greater improvements in tender point count and tender point pain, quality of life, global health and a trend toward less depression compared with those on placebo. Conclusions. This study replicates and extends a previous 1-month placebo-controlled crossover study in fibromyalgia that pre-screened for only one homeopathic remedy. Using a broad selection of remedies and the flexible LM dose (1/50 000 dilution factor) series, the present study demonstrated that individualized homeopathy is significantly better than placebo in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life and global health of persons with fibromyalgia. KEY WORDS: Fibromyalgia, Homeopathy, Chronic pain, Global health.

I will absolutely (And i dont use that word lightly) say that Prof Roy cannot show how and what structure is transferred to the water in homeopathy.

Looks, or appearances, can be deceiving. Here's a bloggy report on a study that says "Homeopathy no better than sugar pill": http://www.valleyskeptic.com/homeopathy_useless....

The Shang et al. paper concluded that "the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects" on the basis of 8 unspecified homeopathic studies and 6 unspecified conventional (allopathic) studies out of an original total of 110 studies of each type on the same variety of conventionally diagnosed conditions. The Lancet's editorial stance raises grave concerns about logic, fairness, and rationality in The Lancet's interpretation and use of the evidence, for several reasons: First, the subanalysis on which the main conclusions are based did not specify which 8 papers of the original 110 homeopathic or 6 papers of the original 110 allopathic papers were used. This lack of reporting transparency and precision is typically not tolerated for allopathic medical reports. For instance, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement requires a full disclosure of outcomes of all initially enrolled patients in a detailed flow chart; but the lack of comparable details was tolerated for the identity of the small number of actual studies used for the Shang et al. meta-analysis conclusions. Second, the Shang et al. paper is one meta-analysis out of several published meta-analyses (the others have been largely favorable to what they claim is "homeopathy"), based on an incomplete and not up-to-date selection of extremely heterogeneous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) encompassing multiple different allopathic diagnoses and using interventions that are only sometimes considered homeopathic by homeopaths.

An analogy for a conventional drug would be to test the effects of penicillin for all patients with symptoms and signs of an apparent infection. The design quality of the studies would otherwise be excellent. However, penicillin will not work for patients with viral infections or bacterial infections that are resistant to its effects or for persons with fevers from other, noninfectious causes. Thus this drug might show benefit only for a subset of patients with symptoms of infections (i.e., the ones with true penicillin-sensitive infections). How would penicillin fare in a meta-analysis of studies averaging all patients together, evaluating only internal but not external ecologic or population validity, and ignoring the intrinsic nature of penicillin in benefiting certain patients? Variable luck of the investigators in recruiting patients with penicillin-sensitive infections in a given study as well as publication bias in medicine generally to favor publication of positive rather than negative results would likely lead to a current scenario from the Shang et al. paper---that is, the publication of a small number of "high quality" positive studies but the rejection of penicillin for treatment of infections in general on the basis of the meta-analysis. Proponents would insist that penicillin is nonetheless very helpful for certain patients with the "right" infections and skeptics would scoff at the argument. But the proponents would be correct: penicillin is very helpful, but only for patients in a target population whose disease conditions match the capacity of the drug to act for them. Thus, goes the situation for homeopathy.

In other words, they value "tests" of effectiveness over tests of efficacy.

I'm afraid I dont understand the difference you are trying to make.

Research has shown that conventional physicians in practice or in training often cannot and do not follow evidence-based practice recommendations in the real world. Physicians report that they cannot determine from reading studies on large groups of patients with no comorbidity or who are taking concomitant drugs when and how the average findings from an idealized efficacy study on a single drug might apply to the specific, typically complicated individual patients who are consulting them. Logistical issues, dosage adjustments for side-effects, comorbid conditions, potential drug---drug interactions in polypharmacy, patient preferences and cultural beliefs, pharmaceutical company influences on patients and physicians, economic considerations, patient access and adherence, patient---provider relationships, and numerous other factors converge to determine the effectiveness of a treatment in real-world practice. The practical test of the value of an intervention for an individual patient is in its effectiveness as practiced in full context, not in efficacy-based RCT studies.

The third part of the answer is that homeopaths have been practicing medicine that worked since the days when conventional doctors were administering what we now clearly see as poisons. Why should a medical system that is relatively new, that may not produce better results, be in charge of one that has been so long established and has proved its mettle in millions of cases for about two hundred years.

Because the new medical system has produced results. Do you use antibiotics? Have you been vaccinated for anything? Have you had any operations in hospital?

How do you explain the huge death rates of infectious diseases in the 18th and 19th centuries, despite your claim that homeopathy is old and successful? Perhaps there werent enough homoeopaths around?

Dr. Roy isn't here to speak for himself, but as I pointed out, he is one of the founders of modern materials science, with many awards in the field. I think it's safe to say he's got an idea or two of how to conduct research in this area. He probably wouldn't put his reputation on the line, otherwise.

I'm sorry, but I didn't catch where you got your doctorate in materials science. And where are you conducting your research currently? If you're a colleague of Dr. Roy and are so certain, perhaps you should contact him personally and save a fellow scientist the potential for embarassment!

Just to get a mention, I have an MSc in ceramic and metallic materials from a fairly good UK university.

Now, Roy- I note that his publications list:
http://www.rustumroy.com/images/Bibliographies/Technical.html

has nothing on water memory, even though that appears to be what he is talking about. So I think we can safely assume he has as little practical evidence for it as I have.
It is also worth noting that his publications in general are, outside his scienctific field of exellence (Which I cannot deny) are foccused on holistic healing, spirituality and marrying religion and technology.

The point being, there is nothing stopping someone doing good science, yet being completely wrong in an area outside that science.

I note also that he apparently supports such ideas as:
"Roy insisted that Qigong, (Chinese psychic-energy medicine) can increase the pH of water and shift its Raman spectrum."
http://www.ntskeptics.org/2001/2001january/january2001.htm

Which should be pathetically easy to demonstrate to sceptics. I wonder why it hasnt been on the news yet?

k.e. wrote: " Tara- I don't think you will get an obvious answer to that question except some carefully tailored "spin" that will limit obvious debunking.Oh it will seem eminently reasonable and will involve long discussion designed to avoid facing up to reality and will be self serving to the point of inanity but you will never get a straight answer from them. Pseudoscience is IMMUNE to tests, debunking, insults, facts, evidence, statistics and logic. As long as fools exist and they have money, there will be some shark there to take it from them. And there will never be a shortage of supply of either of those quantities. The amusing thing is that the tricks some peoples minds play on their owners have an uncanny commonality across a whole spectrum of irrational belief systems. It would seem that pseudoscience is becoming so deeply entrenched into the American social consciousness it IS reality for a great number of people."

From a Wash. Times report: "Dr. Bell administered the homeopathic remedies to her patients by asking them to breathe the medicine through their noses. Many conventional medical doctors discount homeopathy, saying that the dilution and shaking process used to create the homeopathic remedies wouldn't leave any of the original substance in the medicine. However, it is the structure, not the composition, that determines the property of the water, says Rustum Roy, Evan Pugh professor of the solid state emeritus at Pennsylvania State University in University Park."

Mr. Pfeiffer wrote: "I just did a Google on Rustum Roy epitaxy, and there are 132 hits, many of which look like sober and serious solid state research papers."

Mr. Pfeiffer wrote: "I'm sorry, but I didn't catch where you got your doctorate in materials science. And where are you conducting your research currently?"

Appeal to authority?

OOhh, nice snarkiness here. I will now need to read up on prof Roy...

The actual replicated basic science systematic evidence from different, independent laboratories is that homeopathically prepared remedies beyond the Avogadro number differ from remedy-free solvent controls in their measurable properties, including calorimetry, thermoluminescence, and optical emission characteristics.

Elia V, Niccoli M. New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. J Therm Anal Calorimetry 2004;75:815---836. Elia V, Niccoli, M. Thermodynamics of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1999;879:241---248. Rey L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Physica A 2003;323:67---74.

I can't speak about Qi Gong

Heres a new scientis article on the thermoluminecence.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3817

It says the solution was stirred, not succined, as I understand you are supposed to do with homeopathic solutions. Surely that means it was not homeopathy?
Besides, follow up work published in:

L. Rey, Thermoluminescence of deuterated amorphous and crystalline ices, Radiation Phys. Chem. 72 (2005) 587-594.

Showed that the effect was due to trace amounts of material remaining due to poor mixing and impurities, adsoprtions being concentrated between ice crystals.

Anyway, other studies have found that slicate, sodium and carbonate ions can be absobed from the glassware and air with repeated shaking.

V. Elia and M. Niccoli, New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 75 (2004) 815-836.

V. Elia, M. Marchese, M. Montanino, E. Napoli, M. Niccoli, L. Nonatelli and A. Ramaglia, Hydrohysteretic phenomena of "extremely diluted solutions" induced by mechanical treatments. A calorimetric and conductometric study at 25°C, J. Solution Chem. 34 (2005) 947-960.

Indeed, it seems that it is very hard to get properly pure water at all, and you can expect various effects when dilutions take place using dirty glassware, and water that is not pure enough and therefore still contains some ions.

Then the rheumatics study- it says 1 50000 potential solutions were used. Is that the 30C of real homeopathic remedies, or what? If its not, then they werent doing homeopathy.

What the Lancet study shows is that previous attempts to test homeopathy have been so poor that a very small percentage of the results are reliable enough to base conclusions on. I note as well that the larger to study, the worse the results for homeopathy, which is broadly similar to the Ganzfeld experiments carried out in various universities. The smaller the samples, the more skewed, but the more data they gathered, the more it trended towards neutral, i.e. it was a random process they were measuring. (The experiments were to test for ESP)

And as for snappy answers- Roy and yourself are the ones attacking conventional scientific knowledge, therefore its up to you to provide the extraordinary proof first, otherwise we will call you eejits.

Comment #78790 Posted by Richard Pfeiffer on February 10, 2006 12:32 PM (e) ... I hope anyone here who hasn't already completely made their mind up on the subject, for whatever reason, will take advantage of the links I have provided to broaden their horizons on these subjects --- who knows, maybe we don't already know everything there is to know about the world!

It says the solution was stirred, not succined, as I understand you are supposed to do with homeopathic solutions. Surely that means it was not homeopathy?

Indeed, it seems that it is very hard to get properly pure water at all, and you can expect various effects when dilutions take place using dirty glassware, and water that is not pure enough and therefore still contains some ions.

Then the rheumatics study- it says 1 50000 potential solutions were used. Is that the 30C of real homeopathic remedies, or what? If its not, then they werent doing homeopathy.

And as for snappy answers- Roy and yourself are the ones attacking conventional scientific knowledge, therefore its up to you to provide the extraordinary proof first, otherwise we will call you eejits.

What the Lancet study shows is that previous attempts to test homeopathy have been so poor that a very small percentage of the results are reliable enough to base conclusions on.

To say the very least, these facts impugn the integrity of the Lancet editorial board. I mean, think about it for a minute: what are these people up to, publishing such clearly shoddy work and then trumpeting it as the End of Homeopathy?

If all homeopathy people are like you, you nuts are carbon copies of creationists.

It was one thing to let the kind of ignorance that passes for scientific dismissal of homeopathy go unchecked in "normal" times, but in today's climate we have to be ruthless about our shortcomings and unwavering in our defense of the scientific method.