If I call you an idiot, it is because your rantings show you to be one. Yes, is a Case Report. The dingle report was not peer reviewed. Using boxplot graphics, the distribution of flu and acute r infection episodes number was described in a month follow-up. Additionally, ManneWhitney test was applied to compare the intervention groups.
We also assumed an intention to treat ITT analysis, including all missing patient according their original randomization, considering the worst scenario for each individual who presented at least 2 episodes of flu in the follow-up period—. You, unsurprisingly completely miss the points.
The case report is not more important than the report by the State Coroner for Western Australia. Therefore that case report — like any single case report — is of no more value than to possibly arouse interest or be of mild curiosity. On to that Brazilian study. In order to do a power calculation in a clinical trial, the first task is to define what would be a clinically important end-point. This might be relatively simple in some trials, where the relevant end-point is a binary one for example, alive or dead. If so, there needs to be an a priori definition of what the appropriate, clinically relevant, difference would be between the different study populations.
When — and only when — that has been decided can the researchers perform a power calculation to work out how many study subjects will be needed to be recruited and to complete the trial in order to give the data validity. Even then, the power calculation is performed in such a way as to minimise the risk of a false-positive result known as a Type 1 error to a pre-defined level. All your daft comments do are further expose to the readers your lack of knowledge of what constitutes scientific evidence and that you know nothing about the necessary components required to conduct clinical trials in such a way as to make their results in any way valid.
Are you being intentionally stupid or is it a natural talent? It carries the same weight in terms of scientific evidence as any of the case reports you have posted. The plural of anecdote is not data. Data is the foundation of scientific evidence, a concept you still fail to grasp. If this is true, then the Coroner report is too low quality. In your own proper defintion of all pseudoskeptikal thefts, is not evidence of nothing. Thanks for confirm this.
You are a very fool. It involves collecting and collating evidence from witnesses. Where is the pseudodebunked evidence from pseudoskeptik of the Brazilian double blind randomized controlled trial? That you fail to grasp the most fundamental concepts of scientific experimentation and clinical trials research is to your shame, not mine.
Garbage in, garbage out. A textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Which statistical tests did they use? What was the power calculation? What did they consider would be a meaningful clinically-important difference in outcomes to enable them to perform a power calculation? Oh look — they did none of that. Another critical appraisal failure by you. You still fail to address the fundamental flaws of the study. The stream of cluelessness from you has become a torrent. Do try reading and learning for once.
You really have no clue! Did Maddox run a clinical trial? Cluelessness upon cluelessness from you. Why do you embarrass yourself like this?
By the Davenas paper, I presume you mean the original basophil degranulation study. Your points have been refuted on multiple occasions, yet you seem too stupid to grasp them. Dunning and Kruger could write a whole new paper based purely on your comments on this article. And you have the audacity to accuse me of not reading! This is why you get called an idiot. Do try reading that article — that quotation is on the first page. Who is it that cannot read basic words?
Still an irrelevance to the subject under discussion. A term you are still yet to define. Your inability to read and comprehend is really quite pitiful. How many more times do you have to be told that basic tenet of science? Still failing to grasp the point that if you make the claims, then you provide the evidence. Such a typical tactic by a quack or a quackery supporter. To quote Carl Sagan — that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You keep making assertions without evidence, so they are hereby dismissed without evidence. In fact, homeopathy is a evidence based practice.
In this case, the phrase of Sagan does not apply in all cases. Quite ironic, given how you continually argue from a position of ignorance. Where is the debunk for my comments? I will write a paper of each point and the fraud of Randi team. Can you link where did you copy that? And I want to link. There is some links http: Or did you cut the other parts? True link is this: Again — which part of that report being that of the State Coroner for Western Australia escapes your comprehension? The rest of your comment is also idiotic.
You are making random connections between organisations with no evidence presented to support your claims.
Unsurprisingly, not popular with quacks, charlatans and their supporters — must be worrying to have your business model and your delusions challenged with evidence. You also fail to understand matters of legal process as much as you fail to understand science. One for the US lawyers, but maybe read the actual court ruling to understand the legal technicalities rather than relying on Whale.
That they reported something the JREF did is not evidence of a link!!! If a newspaper in, say, Spain, reports on sports results from the USA, does that automatically create a link between the newspaper and whatever sports teams or players they reported on? Comprehension and understanding appear to be skills you lack. The magazine covered many topics, including global warming, AIDS denial, miracles, and ghosts, as well as lesser-known regional topics specific to Latin America… According to Editor Alejandro Borgo, though Pensar was well-received during its five-year run, the magazine was unable to achieve the subscription and distribution levels needed to maintain publication.
Err, yes, this is direct evidence of corrupted Randi. Where does Gamez even come into this discussion? Random red herrings now. Try to get a grip on reality! Your idioticy is great. Gamez is a fraud and liar. Evidence, not wild baseless accusations.
Randi, the JREF — quackwatch sites. Yes, Paul Morgan is another pseudoskeptik. Randi is a fraud, liar, cheat and theft. John Martin Bland, an statesman, is a fraud and liar. Another anonymous commenter throwing out wild accusations with no evidence to support claims made. Credibility rating — zero. Present evidence to support your claims. Horus is right, You have no idea what an ad hom is. Your homework is to go to Nizkor. You may not use the term ad hom again until you know what it is. There is 2 thing: Yes, that is one of your stupid and wrong comments.
And just read this: And you are doing that more then others. All your comments about Randi is example of adhominem. There is a skeptic blog in Turkey, yalansavar. Also he says she founded thebay area skeptics and they are all over the USA and World. They are really nice people. Some of them just talk about big pharma, some talks about chemotherapy, some talks about illuminati… You just talk about pseudeskeptiks and randibots… All nice people.
Why did I tell these all? And there is no relation with the vaccine. All of them who commented to yalansavar. Some of them saying te some of them saying this, but I love them all. And you think I know Espanol. What will yu do if I say that? I really want to learn that. Oh, number 1 is a type of adhominem and I think you would choose that, but not sure. I really no interest in him. Is it your problem? I just wrote about some people who I think stupid. And you are in the list. And your position rised with your last question.
So what the fuck are you talking about? Ok then, now I figured out wht yu always say pseudoskeptik, randibot and adhominem attack. For protecting yourself from they say these thinks to you. You always do adhominem but you blame people with adhominem. Do you care about adhominem? Because you want to block them saying things you did. Really you call this insult? I tried to explain why did you insult people. Again, sorry for language mistakes oh, straw-man, yes but there is really nothing to talk about.
Just a sentence with no explanation. Yes, incoherent responses from your mouth. No, Kaussik Datta block me when I post a paper with replication of the Langmuir paper. LOL the ad-hominem attack. If this true, for the same reason Randi is not credible. In he recognized stronger positive evidence to effect of high dilution on basophil. Well, Randi neglects review the independent experiment of Israel:.
Where is that article published? In this case, a fairy story. Someone who posts a picture of some text, with no reference to the original source and which admits it has no data?
Or the results of the most comprehensive examination of the scientific literature ever conducted? Please also note that any evidence you present will be subjected to rigorous critical appraisal. As Carl Sagan once said — that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The study for which the data you said was unavailable? Any evidence to substantiate that claim?
Your fool questions are really good example of pseudoskepticism. Try read the Maddox excuses in fraud paper. Why Maddox reject publish the independent replications from other countries? The text in the picture you posted clearly said there was no data available to analyse, therefore any submission was pointless. Frankly, it seems that Maddox was being extremely polite. Your reading skills are poor. Sorry, Randi is the biggest fraud and liar in the history of science.
Where is that extract from? Which scientific article is it from? Is it from the same unreferenced article you took that first extract from? The irony of you accusing someone else of poor reading skills is priceless. Your fixation with Randi is deeply disturbing, as it appears to be distorting any capability you may have once had for assessing evidence. In particular, you should note that while Randi was involved in the process and what — precisely — his role in the investigation was. You should also note that it discusses the matter of data from Israel, Toronto and Milan.
The investigating team were not allowed to see the Toronto data — why could that be? The Milan data provided grossly inadequate detail to assess its validity. Surely that information should have been made available, as should the Toronto data? Ultimately, this was a case of bad science. Do yourself a favour — read and learn something about science, particularly about critical appraisal.
There are multiple websites full of excellent resources to help you. This is a misconduct. I still cannot understand which part of Randi being part of the investigation team with very specific roles escapes you. He was invited to be a part of the investigation process as he brought a very specific skill set from his many years of practising as a stage magician and illusionist, making him capable of working out how particular effects were achieved and how other illusionists such as Houdini fooled the general public.
There are plenty of examples of how people claiming to have certain powers or skills have fooled investigators who did not have the appropriate skills to see how they were being duped. Randi came to this particular investigation with a pedigree in helping expose such fakery, for example Uri Geller and Peter Popoff. When the possibility of such bias was removed by better, tighter experimental design, the results could not be reproduced. This second image is taken from this article http: Sadly, much of what Benveniste writes here is little more than an angry rant.
The broadcast version was necessarily simplified for public consumption, but one of the researchers involved gives more details here. He was invited by Randi, not for Benveniste. Why Randi playing tricks when the three last blinde experiments run? Why not in the first experiments? Another example of you failing to read and comprehend.
This does not constitute a conflict of interest — what evidence do you have to support such an allegation? Or is it just another part of your ludicrous conspiracy theory? Where is your evidence that Deyvi Pena aka Jose Alvarez was involved in any way with the investigation in Benveniste? Did he have any influence on the investigation? Why GWUP member declares this as conflicts of interests? Who is this quotation from? Why Maddox rejects the data from Israeli laboratory? Yes, but Randi is not a inmunologist.
Randi is very funny, he is a only chemistry techinican without Science or BS degree. You really are being incredibly stupid — is it deliberate or are you really that dim? Nor is he a chemistry technician! That you fail to grasp this fundamental issue is your failure, not anyone elses. Randi did not accuse Benveniste, or any of his team, of fraud. One member of the investigating team was Walter W. Stewart — a fraud investigator, predominantly investigating research misconduct. You might like to read this interview with him, in which the investigation into Benveniste is described.
Not having accused anyone of fraud, there was no need for Randi, Maddox or Stewart to prove fraud. Even that text extract you repost makes no accusation of fraud! Is that clear enough for you? As for reading the text — I did. If you have the text of that Portuguese newspaper, perhaps you could supply it? Maybe get a scanned copy of the article and post the image — you seem fond of such imagery.
Basically, this is just another example of your scientific illiteracy and display of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He is a biologist or a chemist?
Is a biologist, not chemist. Why Steward manipulate the tubes in a sensible experiment? Which part of Stewart being an expert in the detection of research methodology flaws did you not grasp? Which part of the need for every possible precaution being taken to eliminate bias albeit inadvertant do you fail to grasp? Is the author you, by any chance?
Now — how about a definition of the term from a proper dictionary or encyclopedia? That news article by Phillip Ball was published on … 8th October Which part of even Madeleine Ennis concluded that there was no convincing evidence for the claim made? The link you posted was to a article by Belon, Cumps, Ennis et al. The last article on the subject by Ennis was published in The very nature of such conference abstracts is that they are not peer-reviewed and at best the level of evidence in such abstracts is regarded as being very low, but may show some interesting ideas.
This is standard for such conference abstracts. Nowhere is basophil degranulation mentioned in that abstract. Nowhere in the entire text is homeopathy mentioned, which is hardly surprising! The link to the supplement is http: If there are any of the trials running that Ennis suggested should be conducted, then none have been published.
Clue number 2 — look in the mirror. Why Ball not refernece the Ennis paper published in ? Why Ball does no retracted your defamation against Benveniste in a Nature letter? You really are incredibly stupid. In order for a statement to be defamatory, it has to be untrue — which part of that basic tenet of law escapes you? I see you finally admit your problem. Think of it like being an alcoholic or a gambler — accepting that you have a problem to yourself is the first step on the road to recovery.
The Ennis paper published in was peer reviewed, is about of chornic asthma. The paper published by Ennis in is not about of high dilutions, Idiot. You really are comedy gold with your continuing ridiculous claims! Where did I ever say that the Ennis paper had anything to do with high dilutions? I will recap for you in the simplest possible terms compatible with the issues. You fail to finish the quotation from the abstract, from this http: In case anyone is unable to see the image and read its text, I will also quote it here: The methods are poorly standardized between laboratories — although the same is true for conventional studies.
Certainly there appears to be some evidence for an effect — albeit small in some cases — with the high dilutions in several different laboratories using the flow cytometric methodologies. The multi-centre trial that Ennis felt was necessary does not appear to have taken place or, if it has, no results have EVER been published! If you think this is wrong, then please provide me with a link to the published results.
So — there is no credible evidence that homeopathic solutions have any effect on basophil degranulation. There is evidence that one of the people Ennis who once thought that there was an effect subsequently saying that — due to poor and inconsistent methodologies — that although there appeared to be some effect, what was needed to provide a definitive answer to this question was a multi-centre study using standardised methodology.
That study does not appear to have taken place, or at the very least no results have ever been published. As for Ennis herself, she has published nothing else related to homeopathy or basophil degranulation by homeopathic solutions, despite many other published scientific articles on the topic of inflammation. While several of them are about topics related to inflammation in particular, histamine etc, the number of papers about homeopathy amounts to a grand total of ZERO. All your continued commenting is doing here is making yourself look ever more idiotic, if that were possible.
In the Hirst experiment, they combined the results from the each experiment. When observes the each experiment plot, the succused buffer control group show poor effect. However, the effects from the succussed group and the experimental control show the similar effects from the Davenas group.
Are those graphs from the Hirst paper in Nature. Yes, te graphs are from Hirst paper. Well, Why Hirst pooled all control groups in one graph? Why reviewrs admits this? Why not ask the authors of the paper? You should find contact details in the paper. Even by your appallingly low standard, that comment is incredibly idiotic. So, go on, find his contact details and ask him. Were you looking for the plot in your lengthy absence? Clearly you failed to find it so to you it remains lost. Oh, still no evidence. Please, show me the phone number of Maddox.
He wans answer some questions from the death. Look maybe for a postal address or an email address in the Hirst article. Sorry, the subsecuent experiment is this: The Bland letter is debunked in this website:. Why Bland evaluates the protocolo of experiment? Is Bland a inmunologist? In a letter in NewScientis Bland said:. In my opinion this was adequate. I had not at that time seen the paper by Ennis —. So once again you fail to grasp that in , Ennis herself claimed that these findings could not be substantiated. Unlike homeopathy it challenges itself to seek evidence to refute previous claim.
Do you want me to repost — yet again — the link to the paper by Ennis? Sainte-Laudy and Belon examined 4 different protocols for basophil activation. Depending on the protocol used, the inhibition observed with 16c histamine 10? The greatest inhibition was observed using the CDc protocol with basophils labelled with anti-IgE. Once again, all this cherry-picked quote is show your scientific illiteracy. Despite mentioning lots of papers, there was no formal meta-analysis — no consideration of the quality of the papers and no attempt to analyse the data using, for example, a Forrest plot.
The Dunning-Kruger effect continues uanabated.
Editorial Reviews. About the Author. Jan de Vries has written extensively on alternative health Who's Next?: The Humorous Reminiscences of an Alternative Medical Practitioner - Kindle edition by Jan de Vries. Download it once and read it. The Humorous Reminiscences of an Alternative Practitioner [Jan de Vries, Peter turn to the highly individual approach Jan de Vries has to health and healing. Who's Next? and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle.
Wow, original Paul Morgan ad-Acleron fallacy. The stupidity continues to flow from you. Page 5 of this infamous court case. Yeah, Bland review a protocol in inmunology. This is your excuse? Why Bland lies about of the Ennis papers? Why exclude in your Significance test the paper with blinded counting of activated basophils? The letter of Significance was published in The Ennis paper in preprint. Further evidence of your scientific illiteracy. Bellavite — Ennis work published later. The proton NMR study is based on fundamentally flawed principles, such as nanobubbles.
Your 3rd reference has no connection to homeopathy bar from single mention in the reference list — utterly irrelevant. The next reference also has zero to do with homeopathy — not even a solitary mention. As for the final reference, water can form various structures, but their duration is evanescent. He coments the paper of Chickramane:. I see you still fail to grasp the fundamental issues. Yes, I agree with this: But, it is on a individual level of each hydrogen link.
Interpretations of the behaviour of water in the liquid state are generally formulated in terms of short-range interactions, not in large-range interactions. As Martin Chaplin says:. In fact, by a homeopathic treatment it is possible to change the information potential V q 1 , …, q N of the organism. Statistical thermodynamics and thereby information theory supports this view.
You really are clutching at straws now. You provide no reference for whoever that Brazilian physicist is. A fundamental error that immediately disqualifies it from having any relevance, particularly when subsequent work shows it to be wrong. Another series of epic fails. Where have you been the past few weeks. Krennikov — so what? The paper has just a single paragraph where he theorises about homeopathy. A very brief discussion but no evidence given. As for Walmir Silva — who is he? PubMed listings — zero. Credibility rating several orders of magnitude higher and therefore substantially more believable.
Is a peer review paper from a real physicist, not a paedophile Randi or a Edzard Ernst MD he is not a physicist. Oh dear, your search skill are poor. Please, show me your high quality works in PubMed. You also fail to grasp the fact that physicists and medical doctors possess very different skill sets, such that physicists know very little about medicine and vice versa. Also, water restructuring after infrared radiation persists for more than a day , and water photoluminescence changes over a period of days —. Unlike you, I read rather a lot of the water articles from that entire piece of work.
Read this from the same website at http: Many ridicule homeopathy out of serious consideration as a clinical practice, sometimes resorting to unscientific, unbalanced and unrefereed editorial diatribe. One of the main reasons concerning this disbelief in the efficacy of homeopathy lies in the difficulty in understanding how it might work . If an acceptable theory was available then more people would consider it more seriously. However, it is difficult at present to sustain a theory as to why a truly infinitely diluted aqueous solution, consisting of just H2O molecules, should retain any difference from any other such solution.
Another example of you cherry-picking and failing to read and understand all the relevant information. Which is rather more than you seem to be capable of. Not understanding the differences between what can be shown in a variety of experimental conditions and the difference between in vitro and in vivo effects is such a typical problem for homeopaths and other charlatans. From the Chaplin text. Homeopathy and Chikramane paper. Yes, thanks for validates the references:. Conforti, High-dilution effects revisited.
Physicochemical aspects, Homeopathy ; P. Pharmacodynamic mechanisms, Homeopathy Bellare, Why extreme dilutions reach non-zero asymptotes: A nanoparticulate hypothesis based on froth flotation, Langmuir 28 You are a fanatic and sectarian pseudoskeptik without basis od water dynamics. In the experiments of Nature, no dilution, no shaking, not centesimal dilution of any kind of solute. Are you kidding me? This is a real experiment of homeopathic dilutions:.
Which part of that extremely high quality research is too difficult for you to grasp? They state it as plainly as possible that water structures last — at best — for picoseconds. You do know what a picosecond is? How would the putative behaviour of the solutions have any effect on the typical lactose pillules used in homeopathy? Would you like to tell us about a lower price? If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Save Extra with 1 offer. To get the free app, enter mobile phone number. See all free Kindle reading apps. Start reading Who's Next? Don't have a Kindle? Related Video Shorts 0 Upload your video. Customer reviews There are no customer reviews yet. Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. Feedback If you need help or have a question for Customer Service, contact us. Would you like to report poor quality or formatting in this book? Click here Would you like to report this content as inappropriate? Click here Do you believe that this item violates a copyright?
There's a problem loading this menu right now. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime. Your recently viewed items and featured recommendations. View or edit your browsing history. Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping.