OT Re: Best defense is a better Offense for COVID-19 not just a defense with holes....

[Martin Brown]

On 12/11/2020 14:49, John S wrote:

I\'m not taking it because of Covid but just because I\'m old and my
dermatologist says to stay out of the sun because I am susceptible to
skin cancer. So, I thought I needed a replacement.

I appreciate your advice and I will change my dose.

I\'d talk to your doctor first! I not a medic though I am a scientist.

Advice on Usenet can be worth less than you paid for it!

I\'m taking twice the UK recommended dose at present during winter (for
Covid) - just in case it works. We get hardly any sun in the UK winter.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[none]

In article <263dc11b-dbf8-4fc7-a9cc-6340251dc83fo@googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

7. Homepathy is quackery and doesn\'t work (Diluted poisons trigger an
immune reaction).

Homeopathy is based on a really silly theory. Anybody who takes it
seriously is nuts. Some people do claim to take it seriously, and there
are people who swear by it, so it does seem to be possible to divorce
theory and practice enough to end up with something that is useful in
practice even if the intellectual justification is irrational nonsense.

Most people don\'t realize that they redefine homeopathy into a
straw man. Especially the dilution argument is unfair to the inventor
because he didn\'t count atoms, but had a technical procedure for the
dilution. Remember that Lenin in has book about empirio-criticism
had to ward of main stream physicist that argue that atoms where not
real. The first experiments (on his own family!) was using
such dilutions as to provoke symptoms. Then he realized that it
even worked with dilutions that had very slight to no symptoms.
Then a lot of people went overboard with the dilution trick.
The basic idea is the same as Pasteur when he infected people bitten
and at risk of rabies with the same (the greek homo) illness but
lighter. Then he proceeded to invent vacination. This is
basically a homepathic procedure. How silly is that theory?
Apparently Pasteur was nuts.

There is of course a lot of quackery around homeopathy.
And the pharmaceutic industry happyly quoted the famous Nature
dilution article to discredit serious homeopaths.

<SNIP>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
This is the first day of the end of your life.
It may not kill you, but it does make your weaker.
If you can\'t beat them, too bad.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

 

[none]

In article <fcc4d230-754e-4e6b-9bef-3d6a60ac4b06o@googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 6:45:23 AM UTC+10, Anthony Stewart wrote:
There is little profit in a Vit. D if you get 10,000 IU caps. 150 pc /$10 and after 2 mos reduce
levels every second day. So you are going to find anyone doing a $1m double blind study when there
is no exclusive profit.

It\'s a good idea to get enough vitamin D. People who manage it probably have other advantages, and
the correleation is probably with those other advantages.

It takes double blind experiments to separate cause from correlation.

No it doesn\'t, if the evidence is overwhelming.
Corona selects black girls in Norway to kill.
You should follow the you tube reference I gave. (Dr Campbell)

Furthermore nobody is really interested in 100% solid proof that vitamine
D intake makes dying from Covid19 less likely once infected.
The high likelyhood is more than enough for me to take D-supplement at the
tune of 1 eurocent per day, in a dose that is considered safe.

So correlation is a good indication

Of what?

That is a stupid question. It proves without doubt that vitamine D is
relevant. The second step could be to do further investigation.
Others have already pointed out that big pharma is not interested
in this kind of studies.
Only a socialist government like China could be.

snip

But if you doubt me, go watch their lectures in microbiology.

Why bother? I\'m dubious about your thinking as a whole, and your
recommendation to spend time listening to a a lecture on microbiology
is as dubious as the rest of your advice.

I can\'t respect this kind of rebuttal. Either you bother to point out
flaws in the reference or shut up about it. Reasoning that the
reference is worthless because of the person doing the reference is
an ad hominem attack.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Groetjes Albert
--
This is the first day of the end of your life.
It may not kill you, but it does make your weaker.
If you can\'t beat them, too bad.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, November 13, 2020 at 8:18:58 AM UTC-8, none albert wrote:

In article <263dc11b-dbf8-4fc7...@googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
7. Homepathy is quackery and doesn\'t work (Diluted poisons trigger an
immune reaction).

Homeopathy is based on a really silly theory. Anybody who takes it
seriously is nuts. Some people do claim to take it seriously, and there
are people who swear by it, so it does seem to be possible to divorce
theory and practice enough to end up with something that is useful in
practice even if the intellectual justification is irrational nonsense.

Most people don\'t realize that they redefine homeopathy into a
straw man. Especially the dilution argument is unfair to the inventor
because he didn\'t count atoms, but had a technical procedure for the
dilution.

Most people reach a correct conclusion.

The error in homeopathy is the basic principle, of minimization; one wants
to OPTIMIZE a dose, which is not the same as minimizing it. Talk of \'technical
procedure\' doesn\'t validate the basic principle of homeopathy,
and neither do any controlled experiments. Indeed, the very principle of \'control\'
in an experiment requires one to accept a lower-threshold for generating zero
effect, which homeopathic theory declares invalid.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2020-11-13, albert@cherry.(none) (albert) <albert@cherry> wrote:

In article <fcc4d230-754e-4e6b-9bef-3d6a60ac4b06o@googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 6:45:23 AM UTC+10, Anthony Stewart wrote:
There is little profit in a Vit. D if you get 10,000 IU caps. 150 pc /$10 and after 2 mos reduce
levels every second day. So you are going to find anyone doing a $1m double blind study when there
is no exclusive profit.

It\'s a good idea to get enough vitamin D. People who manage it probably have other advantages, and
the correleation is probably with those other advantages.

It takes double blind experiments to separate cause from correlation.

No it doesn\'t, if the evidence is overwhelming.
Corona selects black girls in Norway to kill.
You should follow the you tube reference I gave. (Dr Campbell)

Furthermore nobody is really interested in 100% solid proof that vitamine
D intake makes dying from Covid19 less likely once infected.
The high likelyhood is more than enough for me to take D-supplement at the
tune of 1 eurocent per day, in a dose that is considered safe.


So correlation is a good indication

Of what?

That is a stupid question.

No, that is a stupid answer.

> It proves without doubt that vitamine D is relevant.

It does not, it shows that a biased observer sees good outcomes when
vitamin D is given. nothing more. If it proved without a doubt this
conversation would not be happening.

> The second step could be to do further investigation.

A double blind trial can show if a treatment is good even in the
presence of biased observers.

Others have already pointed out that big pharma is not interested
in this kind of studies.
Only a socialist government like China could be.

That seems spurious, synthetic vitamins are big pharma.

But if you doubt me, go watch their lectures in microbiology.

Why bother? I\'m dubious about your thinking as a whole, and your
recommendation to spend time listening to a a lecture on microbiology
is as dubious as the rest of your advice.

I can\'t respect this kind of rebuttal.

I can, point to a specific defect in his reasoning, don\'t assign The
Holy Bible as reading material to prove the existance of God.

--
Jasen.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 14, 2020 at 4:22:22 AM UTC+11, none albert wrote:

In article <fcc4d230-754e-4e6b...@googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 6:45:23 AM UTC+10, Anthony Stewart wrote:
There is little profit in a Vit. D if you get 10,000 IU caps. 150 pc /$10 and after 2 mos reduce
levels every second day. So you are going to find anyone doing a $1m double blind study when there
is no exclusive profit.

It\'s a good idea to get enough vitamin D. People who manage it probably have other advantages, and
the correlation is probably with those other advantages.

It takes double blind experiments to separate cause from correlation.

No it doesn\'t, if the evidence is overwhelming.

That\'s just saying that a large correlation is more persuasive.

> Corona selects black girls in Norway to kill.

But it may not be selecting them because they are black, as opposed to recent immigrants, to Norway.

> You should follow the you tube reference I gave. (Dr Campbell)

Granting the fact that you can\'t do joined-up logic, this isn\'t a recommendation I\'m going to follow.

<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[David Brown]

On 14/11/2020 01:48, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, November 14, 2020 at 4:22:22 AM UTC+11, none albert
wrote:
In article <fcc4d230-754e-4e6b...@googlegroups.com>, Bill Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 6:45:23 AM UTC+10, Anthony Stewart
wrote:
There is little profit in a Vit. D if you get 10,000 IU caps.
150 pc /$10 and after 2 mos reduce
levels every second day. So you are going to find anyone doing a
$1m double blind study when there is no exclusive profit.

It\'s a good idea to get enough vitamin D. People who manage it
probably have other advantages, and the correlation is probably
with those other advantages.

It takes double blind experiments to separate cause from
correlation.

No it doesn\'t, if the evidence is overwhelming.

That\'s just saying that a large correlation is more persuasive.

Corona selects black girls in Norway to kill.

But it may not be selecting them because they are black, as opposed
to recent immigrants, to Norway.

Far and away the two biggest factors are cultural differences (such as
significantly more close physical contact in bigger groups than is
common amongst the \"traditional\" Norwegian population), and the language
barrier meaning that newer immigrants generally have less information
about what is going on and the rules and recommendations designed to
avoid getting Covid, and what to do once you\'ve got it. (In Norway, if
you are ill you contact the doctor or health services, and that leads to
some of the best health treatment in the world at approximately zero
cost. In countries like Somalia, you contact a local religious leader
giving almost totally ineffectual treatment, because real treatment is
too expensive. It takes time to change these attitudes after moving to
Norway.)

These are probably the main reasons why black immigrants in Norway have
marginally higher risks of getting Covid compared to people born here,
after taking into account the area of Norway in which they live. And
also the main reasons why they have marginally higher risks of death or
serious health issues after getting it, after taking into account other
health problems. (Refugees coming here have lived a hard life - they
are unlikely to be as healthy as the average person born and bred here.)

While it is true that black skinned people don\'t make their own vitamin
D as efficiently as white skinned people, given the same sun exposure,
the difference is a lot less than many people think.

So that is why Norway is carrying out a large double-blind experiment to
see if cod liver oil (the most common source of vitamin D supplement, as
well as other useful nutrients) is helpful in dealing with Covid. It\'s
the double-blind experiments that will lead to useful evidence one way
or the other.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 13/11/2020 16:18, albert wrote:

In article <263dc11b-dbf8-4fc7-a9cc-6340251dc83fo@googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
7. Homepathy is quackery and doesn\'t work (Diluted poisons trigger an
immune reaction).

Homeopathy is based on a really silly theory. Anybody who takes it
seriously is nuts. Some people do claim to take it seriously, and there
are people who swear by it, so it does seem to be possible to divorce
theory and practice enough to end up with something that is useful in
practice even if the intellectual justification is irrational nonsense.

Most people don\'t realize that they redefine homeopathy into a
straw man. Especially the dilution argument is unfair to the inventor
because he didn\'t count atoms, but had a technical procedure for the
dilution. Remember that Lenin in has book about empirio-criticism
had to ward of main stream physicist that argue that atoms where not
real. The first experiments (on his own family!) was using
such dilutions as to provoke symptoms. Then he realized that it
even worked with dilutions that had very slight to no symptoms.
Then a lot of people went overboard with the dilution trick.
The basic idea is the same as Pasteur when he infected people bitten
and at risk of rabies with the same (the greek homo) illness but
lighter. Then he proceeded to invent vacination. This is
basically a homepathic procedure. How silly is that theory?
Apparently Pasteur was nuts.

There is of course a lot of quackery around homeopathy.
And the pharmaceutic industry happyly quoted the famous Nature
dilution article to discredit serious homeopaths.

SNIP

If homeopathy worked then modern semiconductor electronics would not.

We have by far the purest reagents on the planet in silicon wafer
processing plants. Water molecules do not remember what they were once
in contact with if you serial dilute enough times. Harder to do than it
sounds since ultrapure water will rip any soluble ions out of glassware.

Anyone wishing to practice homeopathy should be required to live in a
malaria infested swamp for a year protected only by their own quackery.

We are now likely to see large scale Covid vaccine scams along the lines
of penicillin after WWII as epitomised in \"The Third Man\".

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[none]

In article <rp10tp$ujd$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/11/2020 16:18, albert wrote:
In article <263dc11b-dbf8-4fc7-a9cc-6340251dc83fo@googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
7. Homepathy is quackery and doesn\'t work (Diluted poisons trigger an
immune reaction).

Homeopathy is based on a really silly theory. Anybody who takes it
seriously is nuts. Some people do claim to take it seriously, and there
are people who swear by it, so it does seem to be possible to divorce
theory and practice enough to end up with something that is useful in
practice even if the intellectual justification is irrational nonsense.

Most people don\'t realize that they redefine homeopathy into a
straw man. Especially the dilution argument is unfair to the inventor
because he didn\'t count atoms, but had a technical procedure for the
dilution. Remember that Lenin in has book about empirio-criticism
had to ward of main stream physicist that argue that atoms where not
real. The first experiments (on his own family!) was using
such dilutions as to provoke symptoms. Then he realized that it
even worked with dilutions that had very slight to no symptoms.
Then a lot of people went overboard with the dilution trick.
The basic idea is the same as Pasteur when he infected people bitten
and at risk of rabies with the same (the greek homo) illness but
lighter. Then he proceeded to invent vacination. This is
basically a homepathic procedure. How silly is that theory?
Apparently Pasteur was nuts.

There is of course a lot of quackery around homeopathy.
And the pharmaceutic industry happyly quoted the famous Nature
dilution article to discredit serious homeopaths.

SNIP

If homeopathy worked then modern semiconductor electronics would not.

This is all based on the premise that homeopathy demands that
solutions are diluted such that no atoms remain.
This is a straw-man and particularly unfair to Hartman
the founder of homeopathy. He worked at a time that atom theory
had hardly emerged and counting atoms was unheard of.
Hartman observed that some illnesses had the same symptoms
as could be provoked by some herbs. Then he treated those
illnesses with those herbs and observed improvement.
He experimented (on himself and his family) and found that
the dilutions had the same effect, even if it could not provoke
the mildest symptoms on itself.
You can conduct the following experiment. Take a person
who is allergic to peanuts. Dilute a peanut solution to the point
that there is just a faint allergic reaction. Now sent the
solution to a lab and ask them whether they can prove the presence
of the alergan. They can\'t, because chemical methods are so much
less sensitive.

Up to this point the scientific method of Hartman is beyond reproach.
Even if you think homeopathy is wrong, Hartman did experiments
and observations at the level of his time. Even if all of
his observations were mistaken, his experiments cannot be reproduced,
and the theory behind homeopathy is wrong, Hartman is not to be
ridiculed in the way as is usual in the US and the way you do.
Compared to blood-letting what was the favorite cure at the time,
homeopathy was safe, and even if you attribute all cures to the
placebo effect, it was a positive contribution to medicine.
Even without conspiracy theories it is safe to assume that
the pharmaceutical industry has a big hand in this.
It is interesting to compare the Wikipedia pages about homeopathy
in English and German. In Germany homeopath is much more mainstream
and accepted by academia, and the article is much more objective.

We have by far the purest reagents on the planet in silicon wafer
processing plants. Water molecules do not remember what they were once
in contact with if you serial dilute enough times. Harder to do than it
sounds since ultrapure water will rip any soluble ions out of glassware.

Beating the straw-man, dead horse.

Anyone wishing to practice homeopathy should be required to live in a
malaria infested swamp for a year protected only by their own quackery.

You have no idea what boundaries Hartman indicated for what homeopathy
can accomplish, do you? Hartman would have been appalled by some claims
made today, including the dilution-into-oblivion.

We are now likely to see large scale Covid vaccine scams along the lines
of penicillin after WWII as epitomised in \"The Third Man\".

I give you this. I expect positive correlations between Trump-voting,
anti-vaccing, trust in homeopathy, flat-earthing, and believing in a man who
could turn water into wine.
This proves nor disproves that Trump-voting is right, or that the earth is
flat, or that this purported man even existed.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Groetjes Albert
--
This is the first day of the end of your life.
It may not kill you, but it does make your weaker.
If you can\'t beat them, too bad.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

 

[David Brown]

On 25/11/2020 14:23, albert wrote:

In article <rp10tp$ujd$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/11/2020 16:18, albert wrote:
In article <263dc11b-dbf8-4fc7-a9cc-6340251dc83fo@googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
7. Homepathy is quackery and doesn\'t work (Diluted poisons trigger an
immune reaction).

Homeopathy is based on a really silly theory. Anybody who takes it
seriously is nuts. Some people do claim to take it seriously, and there
are people who swear by it, so it does seem to be possible to divorce
theory and practice enough to end up with something that is useful in
practice even if the intellectual justification is irrational nonsense.

Most people don\'t realize that they redefine homeopathy into a
straw man. Especially the dilution argument is unfair to the inventor
because he didn\'t count atoms, but had a technical procedure for the
dilution. Remember that Lenin in has book about empirio-criticism
had to ward of main stream physicist that argue that atoms where not
real. The first experiments (on his own family!) was using
such dilutions as to provoke symptoms. Then he realized that it
even worked with dilutions that had very slight to no symptoms.
Then a lot of people went overboard with the dilution trick.
The basic idea is the same as Pasteur when he infected people bitten
and at risk of rabies with the same (the greek homo) illness but
lighter. Then he proceeded to invent vacination. This is
basically a homepathic procedure. How silly is that theory?
Apparently Pasteur was nuts.

There is of course a lot of quackery around homeopathy.
And the pharmaceutic industry happyly quoted the famous Nature
dilution article to discredit serious homeopaths.

SNIP

If homeopathy worked then modern semiconductor electronics would not.

This is all based on the premise that homeopathy demands that
solutions are diluted such that no atoms remain.
This is a straw-man and particularly unfair to Hartman
the founder of homeopathy. He worked at a time that atom theory
had hardly emerged and counting atoms was unheard of.
Hartman observed that some illnesses had the same symptoms
as could be provoked by some herbs. Then he treated those
illnesses with those herbs and observed improvement.
He experimented (on himself and his family) and found that
the dilutions had the same effect, even if it could not provoke
the mildest symptoms on itself.
You can conduct the following experiment. Take a person
who is allergic to peanuts. Dilute a peanut solution to the point
that there is just a faint allergic reaction. Now sent the
solution to a lab and ask them whether they can prove the presence
of the alergan. They can\'t, because chemical methods are so much
less sensitive.

Up to this point the scientific method of Hartman is beyond reproach.
Even if you think homeopathy is wrong, Hartman did experiments
and observations at the level of his time. Even if all of
his observations were mistaken, his experiments cannot be reproduced,
and the theory behind homeopathy is wrong, Hartman is not to be
ridiculed in the way as is usual in the US and the way you do.
Compared to blood-letting what was the favorite cure at the time,
homeopathy was safe, and even if you attribute all cures to the
placebo effect, it was a positive contribution to medicine.
Even without conspiracy theories it is safe to assume that
the pharmaceutical industry has a big hand in this.
It is interesting to compare the Wikipedia pages about homeopathy
in English and German. In Germany homeopath is much more mainstream
and accepted by academia, and the article is much more objective.

When homeopathy was invented, it was in many aspects a step up from
conventional Western medicine - which, as you say, usually involved
blood-letting, and therefore usually involved making patients worse, not
better.

And Hahnemann (I assume that\'s who you meant) did his work with a
reasonable view to the best scientific knowledge available at the time.
(Though even the ancient Greeks had a theory of atoms and smallest
divisible parts.) However, Hahnemann regularly used 30C dilutions (1
part in 10 ^ 60), and even up to 300C. There was no doubt even at the
time that such dilutions were ridiculous, despite details of atomic
sizes and counts still being unknown. (Avagadro was working on
molecular theory at around the same time, amongst others.)

However, whatever one may think of Hahnemann and his work, it is clear
that science has moved on, and homeopathy has not. It is possible to
admire the work and motivations of Hahnemann while still understanding
that he was, in fact, /completely/ wrong in his theories and practice.
Homeopathy is like phlogiston - the theory was based on scientific
methods and understanding of the time, but was later shown to be utterly
incorrect.

So it is perhaps fair to say that Hahnemann should not be ridiculed, or
at least not as much as is sometimes done.

But for anyone believing in homeopathy (beyond the placebo effect)
/today/, ridicule is entirely appropriate.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 25/11/2020 13:23, albert wrote:

In article <rp10tp$ujd$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

Anyone wishing to practice homeopathy should be required to live in a
malaria infested swamp for a year protected only by their own quackery.

You have no idea what boundaries Hartman indicated for what homeopathy
can accomplish, do you? Hartman would have been appalled by some claims
made today, including the dilution-into-oblivion.

Homeopathy is basically a talking therapy aiming to separate the worried
well from their hard earned cash for some worthless sugar pills that
might on a good day mediate the placebo effect depending on how much
they have paid for them. It is nothing more than an exploitative scam.

It wouldn\'t make one jot of difference which vial of over diluted magic
potion the practitioner puts on those pills. It is a method of utilising
the placebo effect but nothing more than that.

It\'s evil twin the nocebo effect is even more interesting and appears to
be responsible for roughly half of all the unpleasant side effects of
taking statins. Their very reputation causes people to become anxious
and feel bad effects even when they have been told they have been given
the drug but are actually on a capsule with no drug content at all!

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/statins-and-nocebo-effect

So I don\'t doubt that giving someone a pill with no active ingredients
in and charging a lot for it may well have some beneficial effect(s). It
works because they want to believe that it will work (and it may anyway
be \"curing\" some imagined worried well illness that isn\'t even real).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Jeff Layman]

On 25/11/2020 16:31, Martin Brown wrote:

It\'s evil twin the nocebo effect is even more interesting and appears to
be responsible for roughly half of all the unpleasant side effects of
taking statins. Their very reputation causes people to become anxious
and feel bad effects even when they have been told they have been given
the drug but are actually on a capsule with no drug content at all!

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/statins-and-nocebo-effect

I\'m still puzzling over why that was \"news\".

Have a look at this 3.5 years old article:
<https://www.ajmc.com/view/no-rise-in-side-effects-from-statins-when-patients-dont-know-theyre-taking-them-lancet-finds\">.
At least they looked at a decent number of patients!

--

Jeff

 

[Sjouke Burry]

On 25.11.20 17:31, Martin Brown wrote:

On 25/11/2020 13:23, albert wrote:
In article <rp10tp$ujd$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

Anyone wishing to practice homeopathy should be required to live in a
malaria infested swamp for a year protected only by their own quackery.

You have no idea what boundaries Hartman indicated for what homeopathy
can accomplish, do you? Hartman would have been appalled by some claims
made today, including the dilution-into-oblivion.

Homeopathy is basically a talking therapy aiming to separate the worried
well from their hard earned cash for some worthless sugar pills that
might on a good day mediate the placebo effect depending on how much
they have paid for them. It is nothing more than an exploitative scam.

It wouldn\'t make one jot of difference which vial of over diluted magic
potion the practitioner puts on those pills. It is a method of utilising
the placebo effect but nothing more than that.

It\'s evil twin the nocebo effect is even more interesting and appears to
be responsible for roughly half of all the unpleasant side effects of
taking statins. Their very reputation causes people to become anxious
and feel bad effects even when they have been told they have been given
the drug but are actually on a capsule with no drug content at all!

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/statins-and-nocebo-effect

So I don\'t doubt that giving someone a pill with no active ingredients
in and charging a lot for it may well have some beneficial effect(s). It
works because they want to believe that it will work (and it may anyway
be \"curing\" some imagined worried well illness that isn\'t even real).

Well, that depends.
My Ma used such a medicine, and guess what it contained. Arsenide.
She quit, when I told her.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2020-11-25, albert@cherry.(none) (albert) <albert@cherry> wrote:

If homeopathy worked then modern semiconductor electronics would not.

This is all based on the premise that homeopathy demands that
solutions are diluted such that no atoms remain.
This is a straw-man and particularly unfair to Hartman
the founder of homeopathy. He worked at a time that atom theory
had hardly emerged and counting atoms was unheard of.

I dont see how it was a personal attack against Hartman.

> Hartman observed [...]

By your description he may have observed the placebo effect.

> Up to this point the scientific method of Hartman is beyond reproach.

A claim you make without offering any supporting evidence.

--
Jasen.