University homoeopathy degrees 'gobbledygook', claims Professor

[Admin]

Professor David Colquhoun that is. See: Daily Wail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=443831&in_page_id=1965)

I agree completely.

I've said elsewhere on here that I can see the benefit of a homeopathic consultation for some people as it's more like a psychotherapy session than a visit to the doctor - useful if you're down in the dumps but there's nothing really wrong with you.

Universities offering degrees in such practises though is highly irresponsible. The big problem as I see it is that they're giving the likes of homeopathy perceived authenticity that it does not warrant.

Does having a degree in quackery make the practitioner less of a quack? One could argue that it could make them worse.

I guess it's an inevitable response by universities that are running like commercial enterprises. :(

[Mongrel]

The Mail carrying an article decrying homoeopathy...

They'll be flying pigs next!! :)

[tkingdoll]

The beeb are carrying it as their science lead story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6476289.stm

Love this quote:


Foundation chief executive Kim Lavely added: "The enormous demand from the public for complementary treatments means that we need more research into why and how patients are benefiting.

"Scientists should want to explore this rather than make sweeping, absolutist generalisations arising from deeply held prejudice as David Colquhoun does in this article."

If she has to resort to that sort of argument then frankly I feel a bit sorry for her. It reeks of desperation.

[Mojo]

The beeb are carrying it as their science lead story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6476289.stm

Love this quote:

Yeah, but how about this one:
For a medicine to be used in conventional medicine, it must go through scientific trials where its effectiveness has to be proven

But these techniques often fail to show how complementary medicine works

How it works? >:(

[Mojo]

Actually, I like this one, from the comments on the Wail story;
I am studying a BSc course in Homeopathy. I have a triple digit IQ.

Is this considered somehow remarkable in a homoeopath?

[Admin]

Is this considered somehow remarkable in a homoeopath?


A 3-digit IQ: 026 ;) ;D

[Mongrel]

Actually, I like this one, from the comments on the Wail story;
I am studying a BSc course in Homeopathy. I have a triple digit IQ.

Is this considered somehow remarkable in a homoeopath?


Ahhh - the "My IQ is xxx therefore it's right" argument. Isn't that a vague argument to authority?

[Araneus]

Ahhh - the "My IQ is xxx therefore it's right" argument. Isn't that a vague argument to authority?

Yeah, this one seems to be popular with woos. I think there is one in the "Baby with the face of Jesus" comments thread in the Mail -- someone saying "I know Jesus exists and my IQ is 130" or something. F**king retard.

[vbloke]

Actually, I like this one, from the comments on the Wail story;
I am studying a BSc course in Homeopathy. I have a triple digit IQ.

Is this considered somehow remarkable in a homoeopath?

It had better mean something - I too am studying homeopathy and have a triple digit IQ. :D

Not that that means diddly when it comes to anything, it just means I can do IQ tests well...

Being intelligent is no guarantee of being right all the time - clever people can be as dumb as anyone else.

[Admin]

By the same token, I would say all of us on here have 3-digit IQs (many above 130 I would say) and we say that homeopathy is bunk. So it must be then! ;D

It's simply an appeal to (inappropriate) authority - the quoted authority being the persons themselves.

[tkingdoll]

Given that IQ is considered a measure of being good at IQ tests, as Veeb says, what is a reliable measure of intelligence? There are clearly differences in capability between one person and the next, so if IQ isn't the best way to measure that, then what is? Or isn't there anything.

I guess I haven't defined 'intelligence' yet, so the question is hard to answer.

[Admin]

IQ tests try to put a scalar quantity, in the form of a single number, on something that is far more complex in reality.

Intelligence is not quantifiable in the way that height or weight is.

Of course intelligent people tend to do well in IQ tests (by definition) and the reason I quoted the value of 130 is that it's 2 standard deviations away from average - so really smart people will probably score over 130 on IQ tests.

The main reason that I don't pay much attention to IQ scores though, is that mine's 63. :(

And I cheated!! ;D

[Cuddles]

The problem with IQ tests is that whatever they measure, and whether it's useful or not, it is not what they actually claim to measure. The whole point of the theory behind IQ is that it never changes, but it is very easy to learn how to take IQ tests and get better at them. There is no doubt that intelligent people will tend to do better at them, but they are not even close to being the meaningful, objective measure that they claim.

Another problem is that the questions are always ambiguous. For example, one type of question consists of a group of words, usually four, and you have to pick an odd one out. As one I've just made up, which is the odd one out from these words :

1) Blue
2) Green
3) Brown
4) Boxes

Every single word has at least one way in which it is the odd one out. The question does not measure intelligence or IQ or anything useful. All it measures is how good you are at guessing which answer the test wants. No matter how clever you are, you have a 1/4 chance of getting it right. If you have taken this sort of test before you are likely to know which answer they want, but that just shows that it cannot possibly be IQ it is measuring, since you should not be able to learn to do better.

In this example, the answer expected would probably be 4), because it is not a colour, and most people will probably choose this. However, if you think about it more there are many different possible answers. 1) has four letters, 2) start with a "G", 3) only has one vowel, and many more. There are even the trivial answers that 1) is the first, 2) is second, etc. These might seem like picky answers that are obviously, not the ones wanted, but the fact is that they are technically correct. The question simply asks which is the odd one out, it says nothing about the reason, and so the only really correct answer is "all of them". This actually means that more intelligent people could to do worse because they actually think about the question rather than just jumping for the obvious answer. The only way to do well on an IQ test is to know what sort of answer is wanted, intelligence hardly comes in to it.

And of course, it all depends on how you define "intelligence". IQ tests try to measure some kind of mix of logic, language skills and spatial perception. This seems sort of OK, but is in no way the only possible definition, and in many situations probably isn't the most useful. Personally I don't see how spatial perception is intelligence (which is a shame, because I always do well at that) but I would say that simple arithmetic and algebra is, which isn't tested at all. And there are numerous ways in which things obviously not related to intelligence can affect the results. A dyslexic will have trouble with the word questions, a colour-blind person will have trouble with the shape questions since they usually involve colour as well.

When it comes down to it, all "I have xxx IQ" means is "I am stupid enough to believe that having xxx as an IQ score actually means something". There was a discussion on the JREF boards about this. The conclusion was basically that IQ tests can be useful to classify people as "normal", "sub-normal" or "above normal" and that is it. Either you are stupid, a genius or somewhere in between, and an IQ test can't tell you any more than that, and will usually have difficulty telling the difference between "normal" and "genius" anyway.

[tkingdoll]

I have done a bit of digging and got an answer of sorts to my question. IQ tests measure abstract intelligence, and there are other measures of different aspects of intelligence such as emotional intelligence and practical intelligence. There are 5 in total but I don't know what the other two are without googling for them :D

Apparently IQ does not correlate with professional success but emotional intelligence does.

[Araneus]

IQ tests measure abstract intelligence,

Correction: IQ tests claim to measure abstract intelligence.

[tkingdoll]

IQ tests measure abstract intelligence,

Correction: IQ tests claim to measure abstract intelligence.


Are you saying they don't?

[Araneus]

Are you saying they don't?

Yes, I am. As Cuddles points out, if implemented well the tests measure a specific set of skills which can be studied just like any other examined subject (rather than your actual "intelligence" which is supposed to be constant), and if implemented badly the test only measure the extent to which you give the answer they were expecting, and might even mark you down for being too intelligent in your answers.

While there is no doubt a correlation between a high IQ score and above-average intelligence, it certainly cannot be said to be an actual measurement of the same.

[tkingdoll]

Are you saying they don't?

Yes, I am. As Cuddles points out, if implemented well the tests measure a specific set of skills which can be studied just like any other examined subject (rather than your actual "intelligence" which is supposed to be constant), and if implemented badly the test only measure the extent to which you give the answer they were expecting, and might even mark you down for being too intelligent in your answers.

While there is no doubt a correlation between a high IQ score and above-average intelligence, it certainly cannot be said to be an actual measurement of the same.



But we are talking very specifically about abstract intelligence. How else would you measure that?

Also, when you say 'above-average intelligence', what do you mean by that? How, for example, would you consider above-average intelligence to manifest itself in order for us to recognise it?

[Araneus]

But we are talking very specifically about abstract intelligence. How else would you measure that?

Why do you assume that it can be measured in the first place? Can you produce a numerical determination of how "nice" someone is, or how funny? Sure, you could do research, ask their friends how nice they are, construct a list of their jokes and see how funny people rated them and so on, but nobody in their right mind would consider this to be any kind of comprehensive or accurate measurement. A rough and comparative idea maybe, but not measurement.


Also, when you say 'above-average intelligence', what do you mean by that? How, for example, would you consider above-average intelligence to manifest itself in order for us to recognise it?

If your IQ test is based on spotting numeric patterns or "verbal reasoning", and somebody gets a significantly above-average score, the only thing you can conclude is that they possess greater-than-average abilities in spotting numeric patterns or verbal reasoning (assuming they didn't cheat). If they get a below average score, you could conclude that they may have reduced abilities in these areas, but this is a lot more tricky because there could be other factors involved -- they could be brilliant at spotting numeric patterns, but dyslexic and therefore unable to read the numbers for instance.

[tkingdoll]

But we are talking very specifically about abstract intelligence. How else would you measure that?

Why do you assume that it can be measured in the first place? Can you produce a numerical determination of how "nice" someone is, or how funny? Sure, you could do research, ask their friends how nice they are, construct a list of their jokes and see how funny people rated them and so on, but nobody in their right mind would consider this to be any kind of comprehensive or accurate measurement. A rough and comparative idea maybe, but not measurement.




I'm really sorry but I don't understand your logic here. "a rough and comparative idea" is a measurement. Perhaps you have a different definition of what 'abstract intelligence' is?

[Cuddles]

I'm really sorry but I don't understand your logic here. "a rough and comparative idea" is a measurement. Perhaps you have a different definition of what 'abstract intelligence' is?

It is a measurement, but not one you can put a number on. You can say someone is really stupid, or you can say that they are really clever, or somewhere in between. What you can't say is that one person is very slightly more intelligent than another because they scored 104 instead of 103.

And in any case, as I have said and Araneus said in his last post, all an IQ test measures is your ability to take IQ tests. There are many arguments against them, and some have been pointed out in this thread, but the most obvious, and possibly the most damaging, is that whatever they really do measure it is not what they claim to measure. They claim that IQ is a constant value that never changes, which is why it should be a useful measure, but since it is possible to learn how to do better on the tests, the tests cannot be measuring IQ. We could debate endlessly about whether such a thing as "abstract intelligence" actually exists, but the fact is that IQ tests do not measure it, whether it exists or not.

[Araneus]

"a rough and comparative idea" is a measurement.

Possibly. I suppose my main objection to the IQ "measurement" is the amount of accuracy that it implies by using a 3-significant-figure numerical scale based at 100. Perhaps if they changed it to a score from 1 to 6, with 3 being the average and 6 corresponding to >150 or so, it would be more realistic.


Perhaps you have a different definition of what 'abstract intelligence' is?

I am not entirely sure there is such a thing. There are specific skills -- the ability to spot numeric patterns, spot the odd word out, remember a sequence of random objects, reassemble a wooden puzzle cube, identify visual patterns etc -- which may occur together or independently. Grouping these skills together under the umbrella term of "abstract intelligence" doesn't seem particularly useful or valid to me.

[Dr B]

In relation to a much earlier point....

I think the idea it measures abstract intelligence is a fudge.....Commerical psychometric psychology - rather than academic psychology has driven this area for many years. I think that explains one of the main problems with it.

I dont know many psychologists that keen on it these days - due to many of the points you have all raised (though of course there will be plenty of people looking at it - but its no longer the hot topic it was).

[Blue Wode]

A big update on this topic.

In his latest blog post, David Colquhoun takes a look at the University of Westminster’s ‘Complementary Therapies’ course material which he describes as a “romp through almost every form of battiness known to humankind”:

Westminster University BSc: “amethysts emit high yin energy”
http://dcscience.net/?p=227


Apparently there’s to be a piece about the course in the Times Higher Education supplement tomorrow. Watch out for it here:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/

[Blue Wode]

To save anyone having to look for it, here’s the TSE piece:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=401581 (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=401581)

And here’s Ernst and Singh’s list of culprit academic institutions:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Journals/THE/THE/24_April_2008/attachments/top5complemetary.xls (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Journals/THE/THE/24_April_2008/attachments/top5complemetary.xls)

And there’s also this piece from today’s Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/24/nuni124.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/24/nuni124.xml)

[Blue Wode]

…a small victory for common sense, for science and for the integrity of universities.

University abondons "homeopathy" degree
http://dcscience.net/?p=249 (http://dcscience.net/?p=249)

:smiley:

[Mulder]

It's difficult to see how a request for information can be considered an 'attack'. But then there are lots of things about homeopathy that are difficult to understand.

[Mongrel]

It's difficult to see how a request for information can be considered an 'attack'. But then there are lots of things about homeopathy that are difficult to understand.

But face it, they also regard requests for high grade evidence as an 'attack'.

[Tim the Mage]

University abondons "homeopathy" degree
http://dcscience.net/?p=249 (http://dcscience.net/?p=249)

:smiley:



But some are not - the latest on UCLan and pseudo-science degrees brings us a degree in 'Chinese traditional Medicine'


http://www.lep.co.uk/news/University39s-39quackery39-courses-slammed.4434749.jp

[Blue Wode]

Well, my quote did say it was a small victory, and at least the current furore is making the debate a little more public.

It’s interesting to note the wholly misleading comments made by Emma Farrant, of the Register of Chinese Herbal Medicine, in the link provided by Tim the Mage:

"There is an enormous evidence base for Chinese medicine. It isn't quackery."
Perhaps someone should give her a copy of this paper…



Conclusions: Individualised herbal medicine, as practised in European medical herbalism, Chinese herbal medicine and Ayurvedic herbal medicine, has a very sparse evidence base and there is no convincing evidence that it is effective in any indication. Because of the high potential for adverse events and negative herb–herb and herb–drug interactions, this lack of evidence for effectiveness means that its use cannot be recommended.

R Guo, P H Canter , E Ernst, A systematic review of randomised clinical trials of individualised herbal medicine in any indication, Postgraduate Medical Journal 2007;83:633-637
http://pmj.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/83/984/633 (http://pmj.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/83/984/633)


For anyone who may have missed it, David Colquhoun, has been helping to get the message out about the dangers of prematurely integrating TCM into mainstream healthcare in this Times commentary yesterday in which he criticised a report to the Department of Health from Professor Michael Pittilo, Vice-Chancellor of the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen:

His [Michael Pittilo’s] May report - on acupuncture, herbal medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and the like - recommends that these therapies should have statutory regulation run by the Health Professions Council, and that entry for practitioners should “normally be through a bachelor degree with honours”. Consultation is supposed to begin around now.

Both of the ideas in the report are disastrous. The first thing you wanted to know about any sort of medical treatment is: “Does it work?” One of the criteria that must be met by groups aspiring to regulation by the HPC is that they “practise based on evidence of efficacy”. That evidence does not exist for herbal and Chinese medicine, which remain largely untested. For acupuncture the evidence does exist and it shows very clearly that acupuncture is no more than a theatrical placebo.

Placebos can, it is true, make you feel better; and if there is no better treatment, why not use them? That's fine, but it raises huge ethical questions about how much you can lie to patients, and how much you can lie to students who are training to use the placebos.

More…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4628938.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4628938.ece)

More here too:
http://dcscience.net/?p=251 (http://dcscience.net/?p=251)


And Dr Mike Eslea, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Central Lancashire, has a website that’s well worth a read – especially the section on the right which carries his open letter to the VC about BSc Acupuncture and Chinese Herbal Medicine Courses at UCLAN…

…we could have a degree in any moronic idea so long as there is a National Morons Association to validate it.

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/psychology/bully/index.htm (http://www.uclan.ac.uk/psychology/bully/index.htm)



Quite.

[brianp]

And now the university VC orders a "review":

http://dcscience.net/?p=252

[She_Liger]

Oh, familiar persons... I see in this thread the same "small dirty dogs" ;)
Well... Hello all! :)

What about story of UCLan? Are they going to close their quackery courses or not? It seems the problem had to be solved by the end of September?

Who can answer?

By the way, sirs-sceptics ask question me in other thread how sceptics must fight against quackery. Here is answer! This story about closure of UCLan's quackery courses was just one of battle of ALL sceptics against quackery. In any case it had to be a business of ALL sceptics. Not only Mike Eslea had to do it! All of you had to help him! Have you done it, sirs? For example, administration of UCLan waited for letters from academics by the end of September with opinions about the courses. Has anyone written such letter (excluding Mike Eslea)? And maybe has anyone proposed some actual solutions for UCLan's administration about these courses (for example, how to recover the cost because of closure of the courses; what to do with students of these courses, etc)? Et cetera!
I suspect - no, you haven't! You have done nothing!

Can we expect after this that these courses will be closed?! I doubt!

And do you think you the sceptics after this, eh?
You are not sceptics. You are really "small dirty doggies" like those in your avatars :tongue: And you can only to bark in vain. But you are not capable to propose serious actual solution of question! >:-)

Moreover! This case required stamina and courage from sceptics, quackbasters, academics. But what has your Colquhoun done now, for instance? He has become a member of OfQuack! How will UCLan quacks consider this action? They can consider it as a tacit approval for their actions! And do you ask me question after this why I call DC "a traitor"?!

Shame!

Nevertheless, I hope still that UCLan's case will turn out well.

But it will happen for a wonder, considering your behaviour!

[brodski]

You mean DC was already involved with an institution which concerned itself with CAM? In that case he must have already been a (secret) supporter of CAM and is there for tainted, tainted I tell you! How could he possibly be a “traitor” as, by your logic, he was a CAM supporter all along?

No matter what he says, or how he acts and how he continues to speak out against quacks, your search for ideological purity has clearly identified DC as some kind of CAM 5th columnist who must be roundly condemned.
An unbeliever! Persecute! Kill the heretic! Kill the heretic! Kill him! Persecute! Kill!..

[brianp]

You have done nothing!

What distinguishes sceptics from non-sceptics is that sceptics reach conclusions based on evidence. What evidence forms the basis of your belief that we have done nothing?

[She_Liger]

What distinguishes sceptics from non-sceptics is that sceptics reach conclusions based on evidence. What evidence forms the basis of your belief that we have done nothing?

Courses have not been closed! It is first "evidence", idiot! >:D And second evidence is my good knowledge of the subject such as British "sceptics". You CAN'T do anything.

I am NOT a sceptic. I would scorn myself, if I was a sceptic like all of you! Weak, stupid, talentless tribe, grown in conditions of British "bourgeois socialism"! What a boloney!

Rather I am cynic! ;)

To brodski

And have you understood yourself what you said, eh? ;)
By the way, just Joseph Brodsky (great poet and namesake of your nick :smiley:) was not a sceptic. He was a cynic. Brilliant great Russian cynic 8)
So, if you took your nick, remembering him, then you cruelly delude yourself.... For instance, look at this ;):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhqmxVrzvLc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLgx75X8GEg&feature=related

[MischiefMonkey]

She_Liger,

You haven't quite grasped the meaning of 'evidence' have you?

As our debates on UKS tend to be evidence based, rather than insulting each other (or our dogs::)), this may be a bit of a problem for you.

[Admin]

I am NOT a sceptic.

Never in the world!!! ;D ;D ;D

[She_Liger]

S
As our debates...

Your useless doggish barking... :tongue: >:D

[She_Liger]

Look at yourself, "lovers of evidence"!

Have you provided though one evidence to support of your idle talking?
Show me just one example of your statement, which were supported with evidence!
For example, provide an evidence that Edzard Ernst is not a quack.

Or - other example - brianp states that you have done anything to solve UCLan problem (see above). Provide the evidence of it. I don't believe you.

Or - another example - MischiefMonkey, I don't believe that you are sceptic, because you believe Edzard Ernst. Rather you are simpleton and quack. Provide an evidence that you are a sceptic.

[Mongrel]

Wikipedia on evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence)

Some salient points;


Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

You only have an assertion


In the court of law: the Burden of Proof is placed on the Prosecution. Prosecution presents a suit of charges with which to accuse another party. Defense, representing the accused, must make a plea about the truth of the accusation. Before trial is adjourned, the Jury must render a verdict of guilty or not guilty based on each individual charge.

It is up to you to put your case forward, frothing rants will only earn you LOL memes.

Now be a good little loony and put up or shut up

[She_Liger]

brodski,
can I appreciate your comment as a hidden desire to know whether DC collaborated with quacks earlier?
Yes, he collaborated with them earlier! The evidence of it exists. He was a co-author in some papers of homeopaths several years ago. Specific homeopathic papers.

[She_Liger]

To Mongrel

Wikipedia is a miscellania of doubtfull aricles! Evidence of it? Please:

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

[filippo lippi]

Never wrestle with a pig...

[She_Liger]

To filippo lippi

Interesting signature!

"It cannot be right for acupuncturists to validate acupuncture courses, herbalists to validate herbalism courses, homeopaths to validate homeopathy courses and so on. By that logic, we could have a degree in any moronic idea so long as there is a National Morons Association to validate it."

What idiot did say you that "acupuncturists validate acupuncture courses, ...etc"?
Courses in universities are a business of Vice-Chancellors!

Didn't you consider this fact? Good "sceptic"! :tongue:

[Pebble]

brodski,
can I appreciate your comment as a hidden desire to know whether DC collaborated with quacks earlier?
Yes, he collaborated with them earlier! The evidence of it exists. He was a co-author in some papers of homeopaths several years ago. Specific homeopathic papers.

A bit late to the fray here, but this statement caught my eye. Prof DC has 41 papers on pubmed, none could be considered 'specific homeopathic' papers. Those dealing with nonsense medicine are arguments against same:

1: Colquhoun D.
Colquhoun reply to chiropractic-defending letters from Kelly, Bale, and
Roughan--and response from NZCA.
N Z Med J. 2008 Sep 5;121(1281):98-9; author reply 99-102. No abstract available.
PMID: 18797493 [PubMed - in process]

2: Colquhoun D.
Doctor Who? Inappropriate use of titles by some alternative "medicine"
practitioners.
N Z Med J. 2008 Jul 25;121(1278):6-10. No abstract available.
PMID: 18670469 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3: Colquhoun D.
A very bad report on regulating complementary medicine.
BMJ. 2008 Jul 1;337:a591; author reply a590. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a591. No abstract
available.
PMID: 18595905 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4: Colquhoun D.
What to do about CAM?
BMJ. 2007 Oct 13;335(7623):736. No abstract available.
PMID: 17932169 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

5: Colquhoun D.
Science degrees without the science.
Nature. 2007 Mar 22;446(7134):373-4. No abstract available.
PMID: 17377563 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

6: Colquhoun D.
Should NICE evaluate complementary and alternative medicines?
BMJ. 2007 Mar 10;334(7592):507. No abstract available.
PMID: 17347234 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

7: Colquhoun D.
Treating critically ill patients with sugar pills.
Chest. 2007 Feb;131(2):635-6; author reply 636. No abstract available.
PMID: 17296675 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


In light of this evidence what papers specifically are you referring to?

[Mongrel]

To Mongrel

Wikipedia is a miscellania of doubtfull aricles! Evidence of it? Please:

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

Homeopathy discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy)

Evidence definition discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evidence)

For non controversial issues it's a perfectly adequate resource. Talking of evidence though, yours still seems to be lacking non-existent.

[Mongrel]

What idiot did say you that "acupuncturists validate acupuncture courses, ...etc"?
Courses in universities are a business of Vice-Chancellors!

Didn't you consider this fact? Good "sceptic"! :tongue:

And for some courses they have to meet an approved standard by as put forth by a professional body.

Maybe you ought to get some facts before posting.

[She_Liger]

Well!
Babbling - to hell!!!

Listen to me, sirs-sceptics!
Stop your "intellectual prostitution" here! :tongue:
Start to fight against quackery actually.

Quackery courses in UCLan must be closed. Mike Eslea started the battle, but he can't win alone. Help Mike Eslea and UCLan's academics to do it. Write the letters to UCLan's VC to support Mike Eslea's opinion. Propose actual useful measures. For example, if some person of us can establish the courses in any really good science instead of quackery courses - propose it. If some person of us can propose some business for UCLan to recover a cost because of shutdown of the courses - propose it. If some person of us can write some paper about harm of quackery courses in universities - write it. Et cetera! Many ways exist for fight!
It will be real affair, but not idle talking.

Now I shall come away from here. I don't intend to chat with you further! It is a wasting of time. Real affairs are necessary now, but not your idiotic talking about "evidence" and "scepticism".

This chap is right ;) Never wrestle with ... small dirty silly doggies! >:D



PS. To Pebble. I said "HOMEOPATIC papers"! What a hell was you doing in PUBMED?!!! Real quacks are not been published in PubMed, my dear ;) Seek in OTHER place :smiley: One of those papers was written together with Piter Fisher.

PPS. To Mongrel

And for some courses they have to meet an approved standard by as put forth by a professional body.
Even some small doggies know that VC is a main chief in university ;) He decides.

Good bye!

[Pebble]

Well!
Bab


PS. To Pebble. I said "HOMEOPATIC papers"! What a hell was you doing in PUBMED?!!! Real quacks are not been published in PubMed, my dear ;) Seek in OTHER place :smiley: One of those papers was written together with Piter Fisher.


Good bye!

Wrong! Many homeopathic papers are published in mainstream journals, and pubmed covers several allopathic journals.

Even in Google I cannot find any papers published by both Piter Fisher and DC, so it would appear that even where you make specific assertions, you are unable to get your facts right.

I did you the courtesy of providing specific information, you should at least have the decency to do the same. If you have evidence to back your allegation provide it.

[filippo lippi]

To filippo lippi

Squeee squeeee squeee squeee

:tongue:

Somebody tag me, I need a rest!

[Mojo]

I said "HOMEOPATIC papers"! What a hell was you doing in PUBMED?!!! Real quacks are not been published in PubMed, my dear ;) Seek in OTHER place :smiley: One of those papers was written together with Piter Fisher.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17015192
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18657769
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17227747
...

::)

[Mojo]

So, plnty from Fisher on Pubmed as well, so no reason that papers by him shouldn't be there.

Perhaps you can provide a proper citation for these articles, if they exist.

[Mojo]

I did you the courtesy of providing specific information, you should at least have the decency to do the same. If you have evidence to back your allegation provide it.

She seems to have adopted Ernst's "Data-Free Paradigm (http://dcscience.net/?page_id=13#ernst)".

[Mongrel]

PPS. To Mongrel

Even some small doggies know that VC is a main chief in university ;)[/SIZE] He decides.

Good bye!

VC can decide what courses are run but if it's a 'professional' qualification it's just a bit of fancy loo roll unless the course and it's exams have been approved by the professional body.

Now given that you've had ample time to respond to queries for evidence of your claims and only responded with vitriolic haranguing, decrying of avatar choice (because that's such a logical argument) and generally throwing a tantrum worthy of a caffeine riddled toddler...

Sod you.

I'm done feeding this troll.

[She_Liger]

Hi, foul dirty doggies! :tongue:

Are you seeking? ;) Keep on!

You are weak, cowardly, hysterical creatures. While you are blabbing here, the number of quackery courses in British university increases. While you are barking here your people believe in CAM more and more.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE against it??!!!! I state nothing. I am ASKING QUESTION to you!

Certainly, there is no detractive material about Colquhoun (papers with quacks, etc)! I said it to tease you >:D I wanted to see how you start to bark and yelp and nuzzle PubMed/Google. I enjoyed myself mightily watching your hurly-burly ;D;D
Besides (seriously), I needed some evidences that Colquhoun is honest man and was honest man earlier. I considered him as my friend. But after his action with OfQuack I started to doubt in him. I needed in some evidences that he isn't/wasn't a dishonest man. And I used all of you as the sleuth-hounds >:D I can't say for sure - whether you are such worthless sleuth-hounds :tongue: or Colquhoun is a honest man really - however you have found nothing against him. Still ;) And I hope - you will not find :smiley:

Nevertheless, I don't see essential achievement in the fight against quackery in Britain. And you can only blab >:-) It is cursedly.

Look at this:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=403123&c=1

Where is a positive result? Only blabbing still.

[Mojo]

Certainly, there is no detractive material about Colquhoun (papers with quacks, etc)! I said it to tease you

So you're a self-confessed liar. I'll assume that anything you've posted that you have failed to back up with evidence is untrue. Let's see: that's all your allegations, isn't it?

[She_Liger]

So you're a self-confessed liar. I'll assume that anything you've posted that you have failed to back up with evidence is untrue. Let's see: that's all your allegations, isn't it?

I am not a liar, chappy ;) I am a cynic 8)
"Evidences"! :tongue:You will provide evidence for me, you dirty hounds, but not I for you!
Provide real evidence that your Colquhoun donesn't create evil doings together with his OfQuacks just now! >:-)

[Croydon Bob]

I am not a liar, chappy ;) I am a cynic 8)


No, you're a liar and a loony. :cheesy: I'm not even going to try to argue with you because nothing you've said has made sense, you've been repeatedly caught out lying and now you've resorted to insults because you have nothing else left. You are a troll, but you are a particularly pathetic troll making a fool of yourself by trying to argue with people who see you for what you are. ;D

[MischiefMonkey]

I am not a liar, chappy ;) I am a cynic 8)
"Evidences"! :tongue:You will provide evidence for me, you dirty hounds, but not I for you!
Provide real evidence that your Colquhoun donesn't create evil doings together with his OfQuacks just now! >:-)

Evidences!!! For She_Liger!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2se2I70CJ0)

[brodski]

No, you're a liar and a loony. :cheesy: I'm not even going to try to argue with you because nothing you've said has made sense, you've been repeatedly caught out lying and now you've resorted to insults because you have nothing else left. be fair, this is simply not true. She started out with insults rather than resorting to them ;)



You are a troll, but you are a particularly pathetic troll making a fool of yourself by trying to argue with people who see you for what you are. ;D
Yeah, I’ve seen much more effective concern trolls than this practising mentalist, most don’t claim to me concerned about the secret hidden motives of people they claim to support- but then it seems that this mentalist also fancies herself a mind reader ;)

[farmersboy]

Can we have an intermission please -I've run out of popcorn...;)

[Mulder]

Just out of interest, She_Liger, is English your first language?

[brodski]

Just out of interest, She_Liger, is English your first language?

She stated on the other thread that it isn’t, but that may just have been another of her lies. I suspect that if she does respond to you she may make some crack about English not being your first langue, as you’re clearly an American FBI agent (apparently English isn’t my first langue as I use the handle “brodski”…)

Oh and farmersboy, no true skeptic would eat popcorn, so I discern your hidden desires and motives to be quack! Why are you traitor to the cause?

[Mulder]

She stated on the other thread that it isn’t, but that may just have been another of her lies. I suspect that if she does respond to you she may make some crack about English not being your first langue, as you’re clearly an American FBI agent ...

Thanks. Of course, you never who is who on the web. Actually, I've retired from the FBI ... OK, to be exact, they want to prosecute me on trumped up charges but don't tell anyone where I am ...

[Mojo]

Provide real evidence that your Colquhoun donesn't create evil doings together with his OfQuacks just now! >:-)

Nope, it doesn't work like that. You are alleging "evil doings", so it's up to you to provide evidence of these evil doings. At the moment we have more evidence that you are engaged in pro-quackery "evil doings" than we do that Colquhoun is. For example, you have called for Edzard Ernst to stop his critical assessment of CAM (perhaps you are concerned that he'll soon turn his gaze on whatever CAM it is that you practise yourself?).

[farmersboy]

Oh and farmersboy, no true skeptic would eat popcorn, so I discern your hidden desires and motives to be quack! Why are you traitor to the cause?

What? I wasn't told of this!? Does this mean I have to forego my popcorn...?:-[

[brodski]

What? I wasn't told of this!? Does this mean I have to forego my popcorn...?:-[

Nah, it just means that you can pay for your popcorn by getting the shill cheques from Big Farmer, the NWO and from Big Woo.

If you want to put anything other than salt or butter on your popcorn, then it will be a different matter mind… ;)

[Pebble]

She Lion,

Given your limited understanding of the English language, I wondered what you felt a cynic might be. Here are some definitions:

cyn·ic http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/C10/C1095600) /ˈsɪnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sin-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view. 2.(initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) one of a sect of Greek philosophers, 4th century b.c., who advocated the doctrines that virtue is the only good, that the essence of virtue is self-control, and that surrender to any external influence is beneath human dignity. 3.a person who shows or expresses a bitterly or sneeringly cynical attitude.


On the evidence base in this thread, option 3 suits you quite well. Not useful, just mildly irritating!

[She_Liger]

Oh, what a striking scene!!! :smiley::cheesy:O0 I saw never such swarms of barking dogs!! ;D;D Keep it up!! Don't stop! Halloooo!! Hey!!;D
I have still many sunflower seeds. ;) I'll nibble them while you are barking! (Idiotic custom of popcorn eating is typical for other folks) :smiley:

Croydon Bob
God doesn't exist ;) You leak a word by this statement :cheesy:You are a mystic and quack! ;D

Mojo
You are nice chap, but a bit stupid. And if some person want to criticise homeopathy, must this person become a homeopath? Normal healthy people will answer "No". And you state that your fucking Ernst must be homeopath to criticise homeopathy. Answer, please, maybe did you awake on the roof sometimes ;) Did you measure your IQ?;)

MischiefMonkey
It is your favourite film? ;) What a unerring taste for such doggie! ;D

Pebble
And can I ask you - whom are you telling with? ;) Such person is absent here... :undecided:

Mulder
you remind me one rusty joke ;) One blonde is telling to other blonde: "I ceased to believe the psychics, magnetizers and sorcerers!" "Why?"- other blonde asks. "Imagine! I came to a magnetizer, knocked on his door, and he asked: "Who is there?" ;D

brodski
"Nah". Good choice, considering a huge oodles of versions of word "No" ! :smiley: It seems, you don't forget your native language still ;D

Thank you all! Great circus! I'll think about the post of a tamer in your troop ;D

[Tim the Mage]

Taking our infertile freak of nature at her words...



I am a cynic


Does she see cynicism as the Greeks (Κυνικοί) - this mean more or less literally 'dog-like' which puts an interesting spin on her obsessive references to 'doggies'



ancient Greek philosophers who advocated the doctrine that virtue is the only good and that the essence of virtue is self-control


...or is this a more modern take on being a cynic being to assume that all acts have a selfish motive.

Or else she's just frustrated at the inability to breed.

[MischiefMonkey]

Tim, I understood that female ligers were fertile? Much like domestic/wild cat hybrids like the Bengal (domestic x Asian Leopard Cat) or Savannah (domestic x Serval). F1 (first cross) hybrids produce fertile females and sterile males. In the Bengal and Savannah, males are infertile until F5 (5 generations removed from the wild cat) but the females are (usually) all fertile. I thought F1 female ligers were also fertile. I may be wrong of course.

The male liger is, however, definitely infertile.

[Jack of Kent]

Svetlana, dearest girl,

Why are you seeking to upset these fine skeptics?

[ http://dinoquest-3.blogspot.com/ ]

Best wishes,

Jack of Kent

[She_Liger]

Tim, I understood that female ligers were fertile? Much like domestic/wild cat hybrids like the Bengal (domestic x Asian Leopard Cat) or Savannah (domestic x Serval). F1 (first cross) hybrids produce fertile females and sterile males. In the Bengal and Savannah, males are infertile until F5 (5 generations removed from the wild cat) but the females are (usually) all fertile. I thought F1 female ligers were also fertile. I may be wrong of course.

The male liger is, however, definitely infertile.

That's right! O0 Clever dog :smiley:

[She_Liger]

Svetlana, dearest girl,

Why are you seeking to upset these fine skeptics?

[ http://dinoquest-3.blogspot.com/ ]

Best wishes,

Jack of Kent



Because David Colquhoun has signed up OfQuack :-[
Why??!!! :'(

[Pebble]

Svetlana, dearest girl,

Why are you seeking to upset these fine skeptics?

[ http://dinoquest-3.blogspot.com/ ]

Best wishes,

Jack of Kent

Nice find!


She_Liger:

She "Lion" - you don't do subtly do you! For interest what filed of science do you work in?

[She_Liger]

Mike Eslea has started his own blog:
http://punkpsychologist.blogspot.com/

By the way - the review of UCLan's quackery courses is finished. But the result can't be told about, because the report about it must be made public officially at first.

[She_Liger]

Nice find!


She_Liger:

She "Lion" - you don't do subtly do you! For interest what filed of science do you work in?


I am not Lion. Rather - Tiger, very big Tiger :smiley: More than Lion ;)

Pharmacology/Pharmacy ("basic" education), Biochemistry/Cell Biology ("favourite" education). Now I am seeking a job/a study in Neuroscience ("a job of my dream":smiley:).

[MischiefMonkey]

I am not Lion. Rather - Tiger, very big Tiger :smiley: More than Lion ;)

Pharmacology/Pharmacy ("basic" education), Biochemistry/Cell Biology ("favourite" education). Now I am seeking a job/a study in Neuroscience ("a job of my dream":smiley:).

Actually, a liger is a cross between a lion and a tigress (not to be confused with a Tigon - a cross between a tiger and a lioness).

So, equally lion and tiger.

The large size, if I recall correctly, is because the gene that 'turns on' growth is paternal in the Lion and maternal in the tiger, whereas the gene to 'turn off' growth is in the lioness and (male) tiger.

The huge size (upto 1000k I believe) is a distinct disadvantage over both of its smaller parents when it comes to hunting according to this video --> Linky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqwLmkd8fl8)

[Pebble]

I am not Lion. Rather - Tiger, very big Tiger :smiley: More than Lion ;)

Not entirely accurate, but there you go.


/Pharmacy ("basic" education), Biochemistry/Cell Biology ("favourite" education). Now I am seeking a job/a study in Neuroscience ("a job of my dream":smiley:).

Ok these sound like subjects with a reasonable evidence based approach. What seems to have got you so exercised is Colquhoun's decision to join the CAM regulatory body. Why does this worry you so much? At best he can destroy the quango from inside at worst he could be seen as lending credibility to the group. Most likely he will tie the workings up in knots by insisting that certain standards based on objective evidence are imposed.

Seems to me this is a relatively small risk for a large potential gain.

[brianp]

Or - other example - brianp states that you have done anything to solve UCLan problem (see above). Provide the evidence of it. I don't believe you.

I did not state anything of the sort.

[She_Liger]

Ok these sound like subjects with a reasonable evidence based approach. What seems to have got you so exercised is Colquhoun's decision to join the CAM regulatory body. Why does this worry you so much? At best he can destroy the quango from inside at worst he could be seen as lending credibility to the group. Most likely he will tie the workings up in knots by insisting that certain standards based on objective evidence are imposed.

Seems to me this is a relatively small risk for a large potential gain.

It resembles a selling of soul... :-[ Look at this:
http://dcscience.net/?page_id=179
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/neuroscience/Page.php
http://dcscience.net/?p=257
http://dinoquest-3.blogspot.com/2008/10/some-right-words-about-courageous-and.html

He allowed to kill Dept of Pharmacology. He allowed talentless person to run UCL's Neuroscience. And then he has signed up OfQuack.
And he doesn't even understand that all these things are bad.... He is silly, eh?
A.Clark understood what is bad and what is good. A.Clark didn't sell his soul. But Colquhoun doesn't understand.

He must not plunge into this muck. He makes a mistake now.

[Pebble]

It resembles a selling of soul... :-[ Look at this:
http://dcscience.net/?page_id=179
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/neuroscience/Page.php
http://dcscience.net/?p=257
http://dinoquest-3.blogspot.com/2008/10/some-right-words-about-courageous-and.html

He allowed to kill Dept of Pharmacology. He allowed talentless person to run UCL's Neuroscience. And then he has signed up OfQuack.
And he doesn't even understand that all these things are bad.... He is silly, eh?
A.Clark understood what is bad and what is good. A.Clark didn't sell his soul. But Colquhoun doesn't understand.

He must not plunge into this muck. He makes a mistake now.

From your own link. Doesn't look to me that DC is the one doing what you are raising concerns about.

David Colquhoun (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc.html)// May 27, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Thanks Claire for that wonderful link. The comments from insulted word-manglers are as funny as the original article. Yes, we have indeed had talk of beacons and champions. Such talk doesn’t usually come from active scientists, but from the managers and ex-scientists who increasingly rule the successful, and for whom no phrase is too vacuous.



Is it possible that as he is getting invovled and trying to sort the problems from within the structure, you are tarring him as part of the 'management'. Odd then that you complain so bitterly about inaction, but also criticize those who act.

Or is your ire due to non selection by the head of neuroscience for a post in that particular department?

[Mojo]

[snipped irrelevant insults] And if some person want to criticise homeopathy, must this person become a homeopath? Normal healthy people will answer "No". And you state that your fucking Ernst must be homeopath to criticise homeopathy. [snipped irrelevant insults]
I have never stated that anyone must become a homoeopath on order to criticise homoeopathy (although homoeopaths often do - perhaps you're projecting)

[She_Liger]

Or is your ire due to non selection by the head of neuroscience for a post in that particular department?

Why do you think so?
You make statement, which aren't supported by evidences. It is not worthy of sceptic.

[She_Liger]

I have never stated that anyone must become a homoeopath on order to criticise homoeopathy

Why? Is it impossible? Edzard Ernst is doing so.

[brodski]

Why? the reasons should be self evident.


Is it impossible? not at all, just not necessary.


Edzard Ernst is doing so.
You believe that Ernst is becoming a homeopath? do you have evidence for this, or is this just another of your lies to "stimulate debate"?

[Mojo]

Why? Is it impossible? Edzard Ernst is doing so.


Makes no sense in the context of what I posted.

[Mojo]

Why do you think so?
You make statement, which aren't supported by evidences. It is not worthy of sceptic.

It is not worth of cynic either.

[She_Liger]

I have never stated that anyone must become a homoeopath on order to criticise homoeopathy (although homoeopaths often do - perhaps you're projecting)

Edzard Ernst has done so. And you improve his behaviour.

Moreover, you has perverted the meaning of my words, Mojo. So you are not sceptic and of course - not cynic. You are a liar, demagogue and silly chap, which thinks himself a very clever and keen person.

I stated (and state) the following. I'm sympathetic to the Ernst's criticism of CAM and I support him in it. But I dislike that he is a professor of CAM. I think that he must lay down his duties of professor of CAM and close his Chair of CAM (as a Chair of CAM). It would be honest act. He could establish new Chair and proclaim its (and his) real aim - criticism of CAM.
Edzard Ernst has medical education and normal specialty in conventional medicine, so he understands (I hope that he understands. More so - he MUST understand such things, if he professional medical doctor!) that all merits and achievements of CAM are in conventional medicine too. So we can abolish CAM at all! The mankind will lose nothing because of it. We will live well, having only conventional medicine and sending CAM to devils! Yes! I state it as medical specialist. Moreover, three generation of my ancestors were good medical doctors. My grandmother was excellent talented general practitioner. She was a "conventional" medical doctor, however she was also great master of all methods and technics, which complementary "medics" consider as their own methods. And she thought (rightly!) that all those methods were immanent part of conventional medicine and she looked upon CAM practitioners as quacks and illiterates.

This is my real opinion and my real words. And you, Mojo, have not your own opinion at all. And if you have your own opinion (small and selfish opinion of domestic pet), you don't express it, because you are afraid of your hosts. You are afraid even to call your real name.

As for brodski, he is a coward inter alia. And slave. He will never confess what language is his first one. He hankers the only one thing - the living abroad. And he are afraid to death that he will be kicked away from there to his native country, where he will live in poverty. So he is ready to lick an arse of any idiot abroad! You are not "brodski"! You are "hui sobachi"! Joseph Brodsky didn't lick an arse of his foreign hosts and simultaneously sent to hell his native "chiefs"! But you have bartered away your dignity to piece of foreign sausage.

Good bye. I think that I waste time with you.

PS. Jack of Kent, thank you for your kind word!
Good luck to all honest people, who still (I hope!) is in this forum.

[Jack of Kent]

You are a...silly chap...

Ouch!

Svetlana, you are quite clearly bonkers and needlessly rude. Cheerio.

[brodski]

I stated (and state) the following. I'm sympathetic to the Ernst's criticism of CAM and I support him in it. But I dislike that he is a professor of CAM. I think that he must lay down his duties of professor of CAM and close his Chair of CAM (as a Chair of CAM). It would be honest act. He could establish new Chair and proclaim its (and his) real aim - criticism of CAM.

So, you want him to criticise CAM, I presume (if you are being honest- a presumption which is not backed up by the evidence, to be honest) that you wish for him to criticise CAM from a solid evidence base, rather than a knee-jerk reaction.
If that is the case then it will be necessary for him to [study CAM before criticising it, in which case, in order to achieve the goals which you purport to support- Ernst has a totally leg mate reason to hold a professorship for the studying of CAM.

This is not a professorship for the advocacy of CAM, as an even cursory examination of his professional output- or indeed the description of the post- will tell you.

By the by, why (and how) do you believe that Mojo improves eth behaviour of Ernst? Is this improvement a bad thing?

[Mojo]

I have never stated that anyone must become a homoeopath on order to criticise homoeopathy (although homoeopaths often do - perhaps you're projecting)Edzard Ernst has done so. And you improve his behaviour.

No he hasn't. He trained as a homoeopath, apparently, and later took up a position in which he critically assesses homoeopathy. This is not the same thing as becoming a homoeopath in order to criticise homoeopathy.

But even if he had done so, and I had stated that I approved of this, that would not mean that I had stated that anyone who wishes to criticise homoeopathy must become a homoeopath. You are constructing a strawman to argue against (or to put it more bluntly, you are lying again).

[Jack of Kent]

Edzard Ernst has done so. And you improve his behaviour.

..approve...

[Pebble]

Why do you think so?
You make statement, which aren't supported by evidences. It is not worthy of sceptic.

A question is not a statement, and thus requires no evidence.

But as it happens you yourself provided the evidence base for this particular question. You have stated your dream is to do neuroscience, and criticized UCL for imposing a head of neuroscience of whom you disapprove. In said circumstance, it is entirely reasonable to probe further.

[Pebble]

The very least you would have to say about Ernst is that he is open minded.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/25/scienceinterviews.health

This is a scientist willing to explore the unthinkable and unwilling to be told what to think. Scientific logic says homeopathy cannot work, but Ernst continues to study its therapies not to shoot it down, but in the hope of discovering what it is that does work. He treats his French wife with homeopathy, he says. "We were both brought up with it."

"They are not always negative results. In meta analyses [pooling the results of all available good quality studies], we generate quite a lot of positive results," he says.

Herbs such as St John's wort, which has proved effective in treating depression, have shown much promise. Kava kava also proved effective in relieving anxiety. But then evidence surfaced linking it to liver damage.

"I fought very hard not to have it banned," says Ernst,...

[Mojo]

I have never stated that anyone must become a homoeopath on order to criticise homoeopathy (although homoeopaths often do - perhaps you're projecting)
Edzard Ernst has done so. And you improve his behaviour.

Moreover, you has perverted the meaning of my words, Mojo.

I think not:
And if some person want to criticise homeopathy, must this person become a homeopath? Normal healthy people will answer "No". And you state that your fucking Ernst must be homeopath to criticise homeopathy.


You are a liar, demagogue and silly chap
Can I quote you on that?

[brodski]

..approve...

Are you saying that Mojo isn't a positive influence on Ernst?
He’s a very improving (and allegedly “silly”) chap, is our Mojo. ;)

[Jack of Kent]

Are you saying that Mojo isn't a positive influence on Ernst?
He’s a very improving (and allegedly “silly”) chap, is our Mojo. ;)

My guess on what she must have meant.

Mojo is indeed a positive influence on many things. And for the sake of third parties reading this, I can vouch that he is neither a liar nor a demagogue. And as for Silly Chap...

I am, however, a lawyer and a demigod. So she would have been close if she had said that of me.

[She_Liger]

Not "improve". It was misprint.

"APPROVE"

[She_Liger]

One important question arises. How many universities with quackery courses exist? Colquhoun says about sixteen universities. Edzard Ernst states that there are 45 universities with 155 quackery courses. Who is right?
As you see, it is devilish difference - 16 and 45!
But in reality this number might be absolutely different from both values.

I think that this number is more than 45 already.
You are losing this game.

[Trinoc]

You are losing this game.
Any chances of a civil debate rather than a point-scoring game, please?

[She_Liger]

Any chances of a civil debate rather than a point-scoring game, please?

Civil debates? ;)Open the civil debate at home with your wife when she'll overroast the cutlets to you :tongue:And I am not your wife and I am not going to cook to you the cutlets>:D
I've asked the question. So - either answer question or "don't worry..."

Two respectable quackbasters - Colquhoun and Ernst - informed us about the number of universities with quackery courses. Their estimations don't coincide (almost threefold!). I want to know a truth.

[Trinoc]

Two respectable quackbasters - Colquhoun and Ernst - informed us about the number of universities with quackery courses. Their estimations don't coincide (almost threefold!). I want to know a truth.
You've got the web. You've got Google. Do your own research and tell us the results (and the references so we can check them). You can't expect us to do everything for you, even if you were planning on cooking cutlets for us!

[lazerustheduck]

As being fairly new here can I ask is She Lier, some sort of computer program, spewing out random bits of text? That is the only thing that would explain her posts on here.

P.s. Sorry I seem to have a 'g' hanging about here somewhere but I can't put it anywhere that wouldn't make the post worse.

[Pebble]

I want to know a truth.

That seems highly unlikely from your posts to date.

[She_Liger]

As being fairly new here can I ask is She Lier, some sort of computer program, spewing out random bits of text? That is the only thing that would explain her posts on here.

P.s. Sorry I seem to have a 'g' hanging about here somewhere but I can't put it anywhere that wouldn't make the post worse.

Yes? And it seems you can't read in English at all! This question was discussed above. Try to read ;)

[Jack of Kent]

Svetlana,

What would you do if you were in charge of English universities?

Would you prohibit the teaching of CAM? If so, would you consider this consistent with academic freedom?

Or would you allow universities to decide for themselves?

I am interested to know your views.

Jack

[She_Liger]

To Trinoc

You are speaking so offendedly, as if you haven't been given the cutlets actually :smiley:


That seems highly unlikely from your posts to date.

You are wrong, old fellow :smiley: I wanted to know a truth about Colquhoun's action and I have received it from all of you.
Summing!
1) I tried to prove that DC "sold his soul" (i.e. became a member of OfQuack) because of money, gain. Sceptics didn't agree with it. They proved. Thus he has done it NOT because of material causes. It is a truth.
2) I tried to check - maybe he has done it because of his "inner spoilage" (i.e. he is evil-minded, bad man). However sceptics proved me that it is not so. Well. I agree with them.
3) Then he has done it because of his silliness ;) Certainly, it is not a silliness of idiot :smiley: Rather it is a naivety of too kind and tender-hearted man.
And it is a truth.


But - if it is so, I am calm and pleased! :) Because the devil can't seize such soul ;) In other words quacks will cry bitter tears themselves, because Colquhoun became a member of OfQuack.
It is a truth.

Thanks to all for interesting discussion! O0

[She_Liger]

Svetlana,

What would you do if you were in charge of English universities?

Would you prohibit the teaching of CAM? If so, would you consider this consistent with academic freedom?

Or would you allow universities to decide for themselves?

I am interested to know your views.

Jack

Yes! I would prohibit it! Absolutely!! I would prohibit the teaching of CAM unhesitatingly!!! Immediately! And forever!

And what do you think, Jack - what will Sarah Palin do first of all, when she will be Vice-President of USA? ;) It is clear! She will require the teaching and learning of creationism, religion and CAM in universities. >:-) Do you agree with me?
Then - bear in mind! I have the same temper. Yep! I and Palin have absolutely same temper and antipodal views. So I shall not think even one minute. I shall do what I consider as a right thing. If I was in charge of English/American universities, I would kick out to devils all quackery from the universities!
By the way, my words about Palin is not joke... The people such as Sarah Palin impersonate a coming endarkenment. And they will never stop.
An that is why I shall never allow these people to do what they want!


Down with quackery in universities!!!


http://ukskeptics.com/forum/picture.php?pictureid=4&albumid=3&dl=1223410560&thumb=1

[Jack of Kent]

Yes! I would prohibit it! Absolutely!! I would prohibit the teaching of CAM unhesitatingly!!! Immediately! And forever!

And what do you think, Jack - what will Sarah Palin do first of all, when she will be Vice-President of USA? ;) It is clear! She will require the teaching and learning of creationism, religion and CAM in universities. >:-) Do you agree with me?
Then - bear in mind! I have the same temper. Yep! I and Palin have absolutely same temper and antipodal views. So I shall not think even one minute. I shall do what I consider as a right thing. If I was in charge of English/American universities, I would kick out to devils all quackery from the universities!
By the way, my words about Palin is not joke... The people such as Sarah Palin impersonate a coming endarkenment. And they will never stop.
An that is why I shall never allow these people to do what they want!




I think you should keep my mother out of this ;)

In any case, it is the Boards of Education which control school education policy in the US rather than the Vice President. She has hardly any influence over education policy as Governor of Alaska; she will have even less as Vice President.

Is it not better to have CAM scrutinised with scientific method by universities? After all, universities are in the very best position to do this. Take CAM out of the universities and you free CAM from any serious scrutiny. That cannot be a good thing.

Remember, if you outlaw CAM, then only the outlaws will have CAM...

[David Colquhoun]

Jack of Kent says

"Is it not better to have CAM scrutinised with scientific method by universities? After all, universities are in the very best position to do this. Take CAM out of the universities and you free CAM from any serious scrutiny."

The point is that the people who teach CAM in those 'universities' that allow it are all true believers. They have not the slightest interest in scrutinising CAM with scientific methods. On the contrary, if they do any research at all it is mostly the sort of customer satisfaction survey that avoids all the important questions.

I find this fact very interesting for reasons that go beyond the obvious wish to defend their myths. It suggests to me that, deep down, most CAM people must know they are really dealing with placebos. If that were not the case why should they avoid do assiduously doing the tests that would convince the rest of the world.

By all means do proper tests. In areas like homeopathy and acupuncture they nave been done (and failed). Just don't expect that CAM people will do them.

[She_Liger]

O-o-ohhh! Wow! David Colquhoun has come here! :smiley:
Hello, David!!! :wavey:
And I have criticised you here:chainsaw: a bit... ;) ;D ;D

But I see that it didn't harm you at all ;) I am glad ! :smiley:

Yes, you are right - quacks will not do tests. However if you intend to do these tests yourself and you joined OfQuack for it, then you have done it in vain. Maybe did you think really that they wouldn't take you in their organization? Oh, my dear! You are naive like Dante Alighieri ;) He thought too that it was very difficult to get to hell! Not at all! It is very easy both for a living person and for dead! And anyone is allowed to get there. Moreover, anyone can even come back easily from there (despite of prevaling opinion ;)).
There is only one problem. What aim? What aim does a person come there with?
It is a wasting of time.
And generally speaking, the wasting of time is a component of "a selling of soul"... ::)
Moreover, it is terribly boring! There is nothing interesting in quackery. It is boring like hell.
Science is most interesting thing in the world. You are an excellent scientist. Do your science and don't spend your precious time for nasty quacks.

Well...
However, do as you please ... :)

Good luck!

[Pebble]

[quote=David Colquhoun;45740]


I find this fact very interesting for reasons that go beyond the obvious wish to defend their myths. It suggests to me that, deep down, most CAM people must know they are really dealing with placebos. If that were not the case why should they avoid do assiduously doing the tests that would convince the rest of the world.
[\quote]

This begs the question of how being on the standards committee for CAM can improve the situation. Do you feel that from that position therapies without an evidence base can be disencouraged, or merely that those ineffective therapies for which there is evidence of harm can be rooted out?

[She_Liger]

Pebble,
it seems you are waiting a reasonable answer from Colquhoun? You waste time! ;) And probably, do you want to know what Colquhoun intends to do as a member of OfQuack? He will not answer! Because he doesn't know it himself.
I explained above - he has done it because of silliness. So he has not any plan of actions there. And he doesn't understand himself at all why he has joined OfQuack ;);D

David Colquhoun, :trumpet:
please, explain people, why you have become a member of OfQuack and what you intend to do there!

[Jack of Kent]

I am taking part in a controlled study.

The experiment is in respect of the circumstances where David Colquhoun will respond to queries about his new position.

I am Control Group A: a rational, polite, measured, curious blogger. I also have no obvious axe to grind, as my main skeptical interests lie elsewhere.

Control Group B is a barking mad and needlessly rude, clearly obsessive and biased blogger.

Early signs show that Control Group A has been more successful.

[She_Liger]

I am taking part in a controlled study.

The experiment is in respect of the circumstances where David Colquhoun will respond to queries about his new position.

I am Control Group A: a rational, polite, measured, curious blogger. I also have no obvious axe to grind, as my main skeptical interests lie elsewhere.

Control Group B is a barking mad and needlessly rude, clearly obsessive and biased blogger.

Early signs show that Control Group A has been more successful.


Sorry, your Honor! :smiley: This experiment will not be correct. If you is a control group, you have not a right to estimate yourself! Some INDEPENDENT researcher must choose and estimate control groups 8)
And second mistake - both control groups are chosen incorrectly. Both groups are not independent on experimental group ;)
I apologize, however you show your ignorance of experimental technology. Though you are not to blame - you are a humanitarian specialist;)

Think further, please!

[Pebble]

Pebble,
it seems you are waiting a reasonable answer from Colquhoun? You waste time! ;) And probably, do you want to know what Colquhoun intends to do as a member of OfQuack? He will not answer! Because he doesn't know it himself.
I explained above - he has done it because of silliness. So he has not any plan of actions there. And he doesn't understand himself at all why he has joined OfQuack ;);D

David Colquhoun, :trumpet:
please, explain people, why you have become a member of OfQuack and what you intend to do there!


If DC chooses not to respond, I shall not assume that it is because his position is indefensible, nor that he is being rude. One must also consider that if he declares his intent publically, this may neutralise behind the scenes efficacy. So jumping to conclusions is not justified.

I respect of your response to Jack of Kent, it is worth pointing out that another pivotal requirement of trials is not to assume you know the outcome before the trial is completed.

[She_Liger]

If DC chooses not to respond, I shall not assume that it is because his position is indefensible, nor that he is being rude. One must also consider that if he declares his intent publically, this may neutralise behind the scenes efficacy. So jumping to conclusions is not justified.

I respect of your response to Jack of Kent, it is worth pointing out that another pivotal requirement of trials is not to assume you know the outcome before the trial is completed.

You are right... Particularly - considering that the trial hadn't started even! ;) So - we (all of us) must not do hasty conclusions...

Nevertheless I have the right to express my opinion. I consider DC's action (his joining OfQuack) as silly and useless affair. So I will be glad when he resign from there.

Poor David...
:-[

[Neuromuscular Therapist]

The point is that the people who teach CAM in those 'universities' that allow it are all true believers. They have not the slightest interest in scrutinising CAM with scientific methods. On the contrary, if they do any research at all it is mostly the sort of customer satisfaction survey that avoids all the important questions.

I find this fact very interesting for reasons that go beyond the obvious wish to defend their myths. It suggests to me that, deep down, most CAM people must know they are really dealing with placebos. If that were not the case why should they avoid do assiduously doing the tests that would convince the rest of the world.

By all means do proper tests. In areas like homeopathy and acupuncture they nave been done (and failed). Just don't expect that CAM people will do them.


David,

I have a friend who is a homeopathic doctor, working at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital who says that "You just like the sound of your own voice and have nothing better to do with your time".

As for the universities, the University of Westminster carries out a large volume of research. Most recently, Brian Isbell has been involved in their very large trial involving Craniosacral Therapy, both of these being published in the CSTA Journal The Fulcrum.

I have another friend who studied there for three years, undertaking the BSc (Hons) in Therapeutic Bodywork. As a university, Westminster has a good reputation and prides itself on good science teaching, such as A and P, Pathology and Differential Diagnosis. All staff are fully qualified in their areas, many with PhD's.

[Admin]

David,

I have a friend who is a homeopathic doctor, working at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital who says that "You just like the sound of your own voice and have nothing better to do with your time".

Then perhaps you could do your friend a favour and give this link to him: http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=443

The Ad Hominem is always used when people can't defend what they believe in. I guess that's why the likes of 'homeopathic doctors' are so fond of it.

[Pebble]

As for the universities, the University of Westminster carries out a large volume of research. Most recently, Brian Isbell has been involved in their very large trial involving Craniosacral Therapy, both of these being published in the CSTA Journal The Fulcrum.
.


Large trials are important - number ?

Publication in a peer reviewer journal - cannot find The fulcrum, so cannot assess status

Clear statement of hypothesis; clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, intention to treat analysis, clear primary endpoint, appropriate blinding procedures, independent validation of end points, appropriate power calculations, robust use of statistics, appropriate study duration, appropriate management of missing data etc.

Your statement to date provides little evidence on which any conclusions could be drawn.

[Pebble]

Found Isbell. Fulcrum want £6 to look at article, not worth it. But have some more recent work of his for fun.

Conclusions
The analysis proves conclusively that patients treated in the
clinic felt that their symptoms improved. Patients scored
significant improvements in their health irrespective of the
classification of their presenting symptom. The mMYMOP was
swift and easy to administer, and it has demonstrated usefulness
as a tool for measuring patients’ treatment outcomes.
The data showed 73.9 per cent patients experienced an
improvement in their symptoms. An average of all the
information gathered for each patient (symptom, related
activity, and wellbeing), and for each component part
(presenting symptom, and wellbeing) showed highly significant
improvements at p<0.001 level.


Impressive?

British Naturopathic Journal, 24 (1). pp. 10-13. ISSN 0045-3110

http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/3765/1/Isbell_%26_Carroll_2007_final.pdf (http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/3765/1/Isbell_&#37;26_Carroll_2007_final.pdf)

The greatest load of nonsense I have seen published anywhere in a supposed journal.

Take 49 patients ask them to score themselves on how they feel, repeat after an unspecified number of visits, ignore those who do not answer, ignore placebo effect, and conclude that the result is highly significant. A very odd way of showing that massaging someone makes them feel a little better - WOW.

[Neuromuscular Therapist]

This was the first piece of research that they did and they concluded that further research was needed, which they have now done and published.

Craniosacral Therapy is not the same as massage. They are two distinct and separate modalities of treatment. There is Craniosacral Therapy and then there is Swedish or Therapeutic Massage. Two totally separate things.

At least get it right when you refer to it!!

[Pebble]

This was the first piece of research that they did and they concluded that further research was needed, which they have now done and published.!!

Reference or detailed description of study please.


Craniosacral Therapy is not the same as massage. They are two distinct and separate modalities of treatment. There is Craniosacral Therapy and then there is Swedish or Therapeutic Massage. Two totally separate things.

At least get it right when you refer to it!!


You are so right, I had presumed that CST might be a form of massage, actually it is a form of FAITH HEALING!

First we have to have faith in the existence of a physiologically and anatomically invisable system.

Then in a magical telepathic communication between the feeler and the victim

Next this system provides the route to diagnosis and treatment

Finally that the feeler knows anything about how to acheive this

YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP! Oh wait some one has, and there are fools that accept this garbage. No wonder we need specific instructions not to microwave cats.


http://www.craniosacral.co.uk/

In a typical craniosacral session, you will usually lie (or sometimes sit) fully-clothed on a treatment couch. The therapist will make contact by placing their hands lightly on your body and tuning in to what is happening by ‘listening’ with their hands. Contact is made carefully so that you will feel at ease with what is happening.

[She_Liger]

Hmm... Cats?!! ::)
And who is "microwave cat"? Is it animal or special dish for Alf? ;);D;D

[She_Liger]

...taking up the question about DC and OfQuack...

David, do you intend to consider such things http://www.craniosacral.co.uk/ ...seriously??!!:shocked:

My dear! Better go to circus! ;);D

[She_Liger]

Another circus! ;)

http://jonwardle.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/david-colquhoun-questions-part-2-trick-or-treatment/#comment-30

Mister Wardle is not quack. He is semi-quack... ;)

[Trinoc]

Methinks the lady doth crusade too much.

[She_Liger]

Methinks the lady doth crusade too much.

Timely reminiscence about this play, sir!:smiley:
Unfortunately you made two mistakes.
Firstly, your quote is wrong ::)
Secondly, it seems "our Gertrude" is clad in kilt, but not in skirt ;)

[Jack of Kent]

Hmm... Cats?!! ::)
And who is "microwave cat"?

I wouldn't be too worried. A big cat like a she-liger may not fit into a microwave.

We could try, though...

;)

[She_Liger]

I wouldn't be too worried. A big cat like a she-liger may not fit into a microwave.

We could try, though...

;)

Oh, I am not worried at all :smiley: For 15 past years different creatures tried to eat away me several times ;) But it turned out, I am very nontasty :tongue:;D

PS. By the way, did someone see Colquhoun to-night? He disappeared somewhere! Maybe has whangdoodle eat away him?:confused: Though I doubt that dinosaurs are edible... ;);D:cheesy:

[filippo lippi]

This thread has wandered a bit, but if we take single words from the thread title, we're still "on topic."

[Trinoc]

Firstly, your quote is wrong ::)
Of course it is - it was a paraphrase adapted for the situation in hand.


Secondly, it seems "our Gertrude" is clad in kilt, but not in skirt ;)
I address the gender of the alias. The gender of the person wearing the cat suit is irrelevant.