Comments on: The Humbug Of Science

By: God vs. Cosmology | Food For The Mind And Fire For The Soul

God vs. Cosmology | Food For The Mind And Fire For The Soul — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:33:08 +0000

[…] is such a lengthy comment on my blog “The Humbug Of Science“, I decided to post it here as a guest blog. My friend Eliezer has given permission: please […]

By: Troy

Troy — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:02:42 +0000

Sorry, I’ve just noticed that it still awaits moderation which was not shown until my last submission was made. Naturally, this and the last post can be excluded.
Those links are nothing new to you I’m sure but they are reasonably comprehensive for when I compiled them and might serve as useful for referencing for someone?
I got one of your books by the way. Cancer Research Secrets. Unfortunately not in time to save a friend. Hopefully I’ll be prepared next time. Thanks Keith!

By: Troy

Troy — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:49:26 +0000

I can only assume that these posts are perused for appropriateness, perhaps before others can see them because my last post with the two links was removed. If that’s the case then I might regard this as a message to you Dr Keith, not intended to remain here and that question goes to understanding why you removed my post??
Some explanation sent to the provided email address would be much appreciated. Thank you!

By: troy

troy — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 07:24:40 +0000

I compiled and sent these out last June. Relevance? Manipulated science, spin and corrupt regulators.

http://illawarraartists.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/gmo-science.pdf
http://illawarraartists.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/aspartame-science.pdf

By: ProfKeith

ProfKeith — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:49:26 +0000

In reply to Paul Sheppard. Don't understand this strange comment. I did supply a reference for the homeopathy remark. As to the Big Bang: you can cart with the article in Nature journal, 1988 The Big Bang Is Dead (that was the title) From there go on and read "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner (book). After that you are on your own.

By: Paul Sheppard

Paul Sheppard — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:48:54 +0000

In reply to ProfKeith. Then why make such grand statements to support a weak argument to support homeopathy? Please provide evidence for the big bang theory being proved false. If you are going to make such claims you really need to back them up.

By: Roger

Roger — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 04:25:31 +0000

Anyone wanting to thoroughly understand the inherent and introduced flaws in so-called “controlled clinical trials” should read Harris Coulter’s very clear and concise book “The Controlled Clinical Trial, an analysis” which is available for download at:
http://www.aipro.info/drive/File/The%20controlled%20clinical%20trial,%20an%20analysis%20-%20di%20H.%20Coulter,%2031%2007%2011.pdf

By: Roger

Roger — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 04:07:46 +0000

I should clarify that the Lancet meta-study purportedly showed that homeopathy did not work. But it relied on a very small select group of studies. One of their major criteria for inclusion was the size of the study (number of subjects). Last I heard they would not reveal which studies were chosen. The only one that I know of is the runners DOM study. If the others are similar, the misunderstanding of or perhaps prejudice against homeopathy is apparent.

By: Roger

Roger — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 03:58:56 +0000

One of the handful (8) of studies that the recent Lancet meta-study on homeopathy, relied on was a trial of 400 runners given homeopathic Arnica to prevent post-race bruising and soreness (aka DOM, delayed onset muscle pain). They gave it credence because it was a large trial. But anyone who actually knows homeopathy would realize its flawed premise: homeopathic prescribing has to be individualized based on the actual symptoms expressed by the patient; this remedy was given at the end of the race before symptoms arose without individualization; homeopathic remedies (and all drugs) can cause symptoms; it might have actually caused a proving set of symptoms in some people, prevented the arnica-type symptom picture in others, and had no effect in others for whom it was entirely inappropriate. Not surprising that the summary of this poorly designed study might be: homeopathy has no effect. Even though for some of those runners it might have been very effective. The large double blind studies so beloved by the medical establishment are difficult to do with homeopathy because of the individualization required. Its not one-size-fits-all medicine.

By: ProfKeith

ProfKeith — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:44:08 +0000

In reply to David Klappstein. This is not a blog about cosmology or quantum physics, Dave. It's about unscrupulous falsehoods against alternative therapies; and I did provide references for that.