From: Martin on
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:31:47 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
<jimserac(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 25, 2:03�pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:12:58 -0800 (PST), CitizenJimserac
>>
>> <jimse...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 25, 9:50 am, bigvince <vince.mirag...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> So essentially the medical establishment told These two ---'
>> >> bullshit in 1980" to" you the man" in 2005 '
>> >> Lack of space .HaHAHa
>>
>> Interesting that you prefer an account written by someone other than
>> the person involved and then shift dates around to suit your story.
>>
>> >Exactly my point. � It was not for some innocuous reason that his
>> >initial papers were rejected, as the quote Parry would seem to
>> >substantiate,
>>
>> His first paper (singular, not plural) was rejected. �At that point he
>> had of course not proven his hypothesis and, as he says himself, it
>> was controversial and challenged conventional opinion. �Controversial
>> of course does not mean "right", in many cases it means "wrong".
>> Marshall knew he needed better evidence so set out to find it.
>>
>> >This is demonstrated by his extraordinary action of
>> >ingesting the bacteria himself, whereupon (suprise!!) he demonstrated
>> >the predicted initial symptoms of the ulcers.
>>
>> As you would have discovered if you read his account instead of
>> someone else's, �he did this not because others wouldn't believe him
>> but because his animal experiments with pigs had failed. �He could not
>> satisfy Koch's Postulates, criteria designed to establish a causal
>> relationship between a causative microbe and a disease. �He knew that
>> without satisfying those postulates he would not have proof of his
>> theory and could not publish.
>>
>> >Unreasoning scepticism, scepticism held so strongly that it
>> >AUTOMATICALLY DISCOUNTS evidence which suggests an alternative
>>
>> Unfortunately for your prejudices the treatment of ulcers changed
>> rapidly once Marshall published his proof.
>
>EXCUSE ME? That's a complete fairy tale and treatments for ulcers
>changed only slowly over the course of the next 5-10 years.

Jimbo, if you knew anything about science and medicine you'd know that
10 years from lab to bedside in very, very, very fast.
It's clear you don't have a clue.

>Please don't make me look up the references to document that,
>there are numerous ones.
>
>>�Many had dismissed his
>> theory - none discounted his _evidence_ . �His paper was published in
>> the Lancet without any trouble at all and because it contained the
>> data necessary for verification and the information necessary for
>> replication it was rapidly accepted by readers. �It was a good example
>> of evidence led science.
>
>Complete fairy tale. Resistance and utter CONSTERNATION continued
>for some time until gradually the veracity of his data become
>unquestioned.
>To claim that it was a smooth process without hitches and happened
>quickly
>is absurd.
>>
>> > this
>> >is the same kind of obstinacy which is blocking a more aggressive and
>> >widespread support for the kind of research undertaken by Dr.
>> >Bannerji.
>>
>> Well all Bannerji has to do is exactly what Marshall did and write up
>> his results (which he claims he has had for years) in a way which will
>> allow them to be verified and replicated.
>
>How can he do that if the protocol is individually tailored to the
>exact needs
>of a specific patient. You are asking for proof along the lines of
>"one size fits
>all medicine" which this is NOT.
>
>>� If he did this similar
>> fame and reward would come his way. �It seems very straightforward and
>> you don't appear to be able or willing to suggest why he doesn't do
>> this.
>
>It is NOT straightforward. Anomalous sightings of gut bacteria were
>reported on and off
>in labs for almost 50 years before Barry Marshall attacked the
>problem. And that's just
>for one problem related to stomach ulcers Homeopathy is a system of
>medicine of vastly
>wider scope and its operative mechanism, if it exists, is likely to be
>far smaller than a bacteria.
>
>Citizen Jimserac
>
>

From: Peter Parry on
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:31:47 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
<jimserac(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 25, 2:03�pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:

>> Well all Bannerji has to do is exactly what Marshall did and write up
>> his results (which he claims he has had for years) in a way which will
>> allow them to be verified and replicated.
>
>How can he do that if the protocol is individually tailored to the
>exact needs of a specific patient. You are asking for proof along the lines of
>"one size fits all medicine" which this is NOT.

Yes it is.

This is exactly why it should be easy to test. The "Bannerji
Protocol" is _not_ specific to the individual it is _specific to the
disease_. It is one of its selling points.

"Specific medicines are prescribed for specific diseases. Diseases are
diagnosed using modern/state of the art methods. This is done because
modern diagnostic approaches incorporate and help in the selection of
medicines so that specific medicines could be easily prescribed for
specific diseases. This is not practiced in classical homeopathy."

So the usual whinge by homeopaths that what they do can't possibly be
tested because each treatment is unique to the individual
client/homeopath combination simply doesn't apply.

>>� If he did this similar
>> fame and reward would come his way. �It seems very straightforward and
>> you don't appear to be able or willing to suggest why he doesn't do
>> this.

>nd that's just for one problem related to stomach ulcers Homeopathy is a system of
>medicine of vastly wider scope and its operative mechanism, if it exists, is likely to be
>far smaller than a bacteria.

Homeopathy only has one book, and that isn't particularly big. You
are missing the point though. the Bannerjis claim to have overcome
the need for mystical bonding between homeopath and client. Their
homeopathy is disease, not client specific. There is therefore no
reason at all why it can't be tested conventionally. They don't even
meet their patients - diagnosis is done by e-mail.

Furthermore, in their in vitro work which started this conversation
they have omitted vital information which must have been collected to
support their conclusions - why have they not disclosed it in their
paper? In their published works in various Spandidos publications
they have consistently omitted data necessary for verification and
replication. They must know this renders their papers worthless yet
they continue to do it. Why?
From: Peter Parry on
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:41:06 -0800 (PST), bigvince
<vince.miraglia(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Two questions do you feel that the resistance to even looking at the
>data on homeopathy is at all related to the reason Marshall gave for
>the reason many did not even want to look at his data

The problem is there is scant data to look at on homeopathy and most
is of poor quality. In the study which started this discussion and
others in the same stable of journals which have been written by
Banerjis there isn't enough information to be able to confirm what
they are claiming is valid. Nor is there enough to enable anyone else
to replicate their experiments.

The claim has been made that as homeopathy depends upon some bonding
between the practitioner and client it cannot be tested in
conventional trials. Leaving aside whether or not that claim is
sensible the Banerjis are saying that they have a new system of
homeopathy which , unlike conventional homeopathy, is not specific to
the client but to the disease. There is therefore no reason why it
cannot be tested in double blind trials.

Proving homeopathy works, and achieving less than half of the
fantastic claims made by the Banerjis, would lead to scientific fame
and fortune. Why, if they have the data, don't they publish it in a
way that allows others to confirm their findings?

Marshall had an idea. He published it and was met with skepticism (as
should any such idea - the motto of the Royal Society is "believe no
man" In other words - you think you are right - prove it). Marshall
knew this and set about getting the necessary proof.

The Banerjis have what they claim is a new idea - non specific
homeopathy. They have published the idea and, quite rightly, the same
response is made - prove it.

Marshall got the necessary proof and presented it in a way which
others could examine. He published the data allowing them to check
his paper. He published the information to allow them to replicate
his experiments, which many around the world promptly did. Because of
the quality of his paper it was published in the Lancet.

The Banerjis claim to have proof of their new "protocol" and the
effectiveness of homeopathic preparations in vitro. They don't
publish the data necessary to allow others to evaluate their findings.
They don't publish enough information to allow replication. They
chose experimental methods which make it impossible to tell if they
have actually discovered anything at all. They publish in rather
obscure journals from only one minor publisher.

Marshalls idea was accepted because it was proven to be right and
could be repeated by others

The Banerjis ideas are not accepted because they have not proved them.
It is as simple as that.

What is completely inexplicable, if they are reputable scientists, is
why they chose to write their papers in a way which they must know
perfectly well will inevitably lead to no interest being taken in
them.

They have supposedly developed a method of homeopathy which would be
amenable to double blind trial. Moreover they are claiming results
with that method which are so far beyond what is achievable in
conventional medicine that, if they are true, would make proving them
simple. The rewards for doing so both in terms of fame and wealth
would be enormous.

Why are they not producing the proof?

From: Martin on
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:03:32 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
<jimserac(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 25, 4:17�pm, Martin <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:31:47 -0800 (PST), CitizenJimserac
>>
>>
>>
>> <jimse...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 25, 2:03�pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:12:58 -0800 (PST), CitizenJimserac
>>
>> >> <jimse...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 25, 9:50 am, bigvince <vince.mirag...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> So essentially the medical establishment told These two ---'
>> >> >> bullshit in 1980" to" you the man" in 2005 '
>> >> >> Lack of space .HaHAHa
>>
>> >> Interesting that you prefer an account written by someone other than
>> >> the person involved and then shift dates around to suit your story.
>>
>> >> >Exactly my point. � It was not for some innocuous reason that his
>> >> >initial papers were rejected, as the quote Parry would seem to
>> >> >substantiate,
>>
>> >> His first paper (singular, not plural) was rejected. �At that point he
>> >> had of course not proven his hypothesis and, as he says himself, it
>> >> was controversial and challenged conventional opinion. �Controversial
>> >> of course does not mean "right", in many cases it means "wrong".
>> >> Marshall knew he needed better evidence so set out to find it.
>>
>> >> >This is demonstrated by his extraordinary action of
>> >> >ingesting the bacteria himself, whereupon (suprise!!) he demonstrated
>> >> >the predicted initial symptoms of the ulcers.
>>
>> >> As you would have discovered if you read his account instead of
>> >> someone else's, �he did this not because others wouldn't believe him
>> >> but because his animal experiments with pigs had failed. �He could not
>> >> satisfy Koch's Postulates, criteria designed to establish a causal
>> >> relationship between a causative microbe and a disease. �He knew that
>> >> without satisfying those postulates he would not have proof of his
>> >> theory and could not publish.
>>
>> >> >Unreasoning scepticism, scepticism held so strongly that it
>> >> >AUTOMATICALLY DISCOUNTS evidence which suggests an alternative
>>
>> >> Unfortunately for your prejudices the treatment of ulcers changed
>> >> rapidly once Marshall published his proof.
>>
>> >EXCUSE ME? �That's a complete fairy tale and treatments for ulcers
>> >changed only slowly over the course of the next 5-10 years.
>>
>> Jimbo, if you knew anything about science and medicine you'd know that
>> 10 years from lab to bedside in very, very, very fast.
>> It's clear you don't have a clue.
>>
>
>Marty again!! Nice of you to defend Parry!

Why would I defend Parry? I'm defending reality, and it is frankly
quite shocking that reality needs defending.

>Don't forget Alice!!!
>
>Gotta go
>Bye!
>
>CJ