en:misc:talk-saine-novella
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
en:misc:talk-saine-novella [2013/04/15 08:58] legatum |
en:misc:talk-saine-novella [2013/04/15 09:22] legatum |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| {{anchor:s2}} | {{anchor:s2}} | ||
| - | This is a transcription of a [[http://mediasite.uchc.edu/mediasite41/Play/f45177db9279460797ffe70714a3f5611d|video]] recording a talk on homeopathy that took place on the premises of the University of Connecticut, March 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2013. The topic of the talk was //Homeopathy: Great Medicine or Dangerous Pseudoscience?//, the opponents were Dr. André Saine and Dr. Steven Novella. | + | This is a transcription of a [[http://mediasite.uchc.edu/mediasite41/Play/f45177db9279460797ffe70714a3f5611d|video]] of a talk on homeopathy that took place on the premises of the University of Connecticut, March 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2013. The topic of the talk was //Homeopathy: Great Medicine or Dangerous Pseudoscience?//, the opponents were Dr. André Saine and Dr. Steven Novella. |
| <WRAP center round info 60%> | <WRAP center round info 60%> | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ===== Introduction ===== | ===== Introduction ===== | ||
| - | Presenter: Good Afternoon! Welcome to the University of Connecticut Health Center & to a debate that we're having today on - **Homeopathy: Great Medicine or Dangerous Pseudoscience?** We are honored today to have two of the experts debating this topic today. First of all Dr. André Saine who has been a student of homeopathy since 1976 and is likely the most knowledgeable person regarding homeopathic practice, research and literature and more particularly the early writings. He is an instructor and speaker on this topic, traveling throughout the world to do this. Since 1995 he has been the president of Québec Association of Naturopathic Physicians and has an active private practice in Montréal Canada. | + | Presenter: Good Afternoon! Welcome to the University of Connecticut Health Center & to a debate that we're having today on - **Homeopathy: Great Medicine or Dangerous Pseudoscience?** We are honored to have two of the experts debating this topic today. First of all Dr. André Saine who has been a student of homeopathy since 1976 and is likely the most knowledgeable person regarding homeopathic practice, research and literature and more particularly the early writings. He is an instructor and speaker on this topic, traveling throughout the world to do this. Since 1995 he has been the president of Québec Association of Naturopathic Physicians and has an active private practice in Montréal Canada. |
| - | Dr. Steven Novella is president of New England Skeptical Society and is a long time critic of the homeopathic medicine. He received his M.D. degree from George Washington University. Since 1996 he has been and is an assistant professor of Neurology and is an attending physician at Young New Haven Medical Center. To start with today, we first welcome you from wherever positions you sit in, we hope everybody comes here with an open mind and listens carefully to the debate. | + | Dr. Steven Novella is president of New England Skeptical Society and is a long time critic of the homeopathic medicine. He received his M.D. degree from George Washington University. Since 1996 he has been and is an assistant professor of Neurology and is an attending physician at Yale New Haven Medical Center. To start with today, we first welcome you from wherever positions you sit in, we hope everybody comes here with an open mind and listens carefully to the debate. |
| - | There was a roundtable discussion where these two gentlemen were involved in 2007, here at the Health Center and that's published in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, if you like to look it up. First of all, the format is very important for our debate, for us as listeners but also to our debaters and it would proceed in the following way: Each will have 30 minutes, starting with Dr. Saine. Then there will be 10 minutes each for the first rebuttal, 2 minutes each for the second rebuttal and then they'll have 20 minutes in which time they can cross-examine each other. Then there will be questions from the public, so, on your way in, you received cards -- Mr. Gold will be collecting cards throughout the presentation and he'll be bringing up to the front so that we can sort of collate them, so that we have a concise question-and-answer period. | + | There was a roundtable discussion where these two gentlemen were involved in 2007, here at the Health Center and that's published in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, if you like to look it up. First of all, the format is very important for our debate, for us as listeners but also to our debaters and it would proceed in the following way: Each will have 30 minutes, starting with Dr. Saine. Then there will be 10 minutes each for the first rebuttal, 2 minutes each for the second rebuttal and then they'll have 20 minutes in which time they can cross-examine each other. Then there will be questions from the public, so, on your way in, you received cards -- Mr. Gold will be collecting cards throughout the presentation and he'll be bringing [them] up to the front so that we can sort of collate them; so that we have a concise question-and-answer period. |
| Then there will be a conclusion, there will be a vote asking you whether or not you feel more or less favorably about homeopathic medicine at this time, based on the debate; and there'll be some closing remarks. We respectfully, for the presenters, ask you that there aren't interruptions until the part in the question-and-answer period and we'll have to stick to that. Okay? Thank you so much for your interest. (Audience clapping) Dr. Saine! | Then there will be a conclusion, there will be a vote asking you whether or not you feel more or less favorably about homeopathic medicine at this time, based on the debate; and there'll be some closing remarks. We respectfully, for the presenters, ask you that there aren't interruptions until the part in the question-and-answer period and we'll have to stick to that. Okay? Thank you so much for your interest. (Audience clapping) Dr. Saine! | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| Dr. Saine: Good afternoon, we can feel spring in the air and time of renewal. First, I would like to thank Dr. Mary Guerrera for the invitation on behalf of UConn, it’s quite an honor to be able to be called to this historic debate, which I would like to dedicate to **Samuel Hahnemann—the founder of homeopathy**—who exactly two hundred years ago, in 1813, was put in charge of a typhus hospital following the battle of Leipzig, which is a famous battle, and reported having treated 183 cases of typhus without a single loss. Such stunning result greatly impressed the Russian Government, then in occupation, but very strangely went unnoticed by the medical community. This is very particular in view of the fact that this deadly epidemic would eventually take half a million victims among Napoleon’s army and the German population. | Dr. Saine: Good afternoon, we can feel spring in the air and time of renewal. First, I would like to thank Dr. Mary Guerrera for the invitation on behalf of UConn, it’s quite an honor to be able to be called to this historic debate, which I would like to dedicate to **Samuel Hahnemann—the founder of homeopathy**—who exactly two hundred years ago, in 1813, was put in charge of a typhus hospital following the battle of Leipzig, which is a famous battle, and reported having treated 183 cases of typhus without a single loss. Such stunning result greatly impressed the Russian Government, then in occupation, but very strangely went unnoticed by the medical community. This is very particular in view of the fact that this deadly epidemic would eventually take half a million victims among Napoleon’s army and the German population. | ||
| - | Ladies and Gentlemen, today, we have a rare opportunity to critically examine two completely opposite views of homeopathy. In theory, if Dr. Novella and I use the best of scientific thinking, and stick only to facts and sound reasoning on this purely scientific question, we should come to the same conclusion, as true scientists are self-critical, and true science is self-correcting. | + | Ladies and Gentlemen, today, we have a rare opportunity to critically examine two completely opposite views of homeopathy. In theory, if Dr. Novella and I use the best of scientific thinking, and stick only to facts and sound reasoning on this purely scientific question, we should come to the same conclusion -- as true scientists are self-critical, and true science is self-correcting. |
| I will now ask your unreserved attention for the next 30 minutes, as I will now present a very condensed summary of the evidence that supports homeopathy to be a great, and most scientific and beneficial medicine. So we will need all your neurons! | I will now ask your unreserved attention for the next 30 minutes, as I will now present a very condensed summary of the evidence that supports homeopathy to be a great, and most scientific and beneficial medicine. So we will need all your neurons! | ||
| - | Let me first address the argument of implausibility, the core issue in this 200 year-old dispute, which focuses in particular on the fact that homeopaths use ultra-molecular preparations. Ultra Molecular Preparations or UMPs are prepared from solutions that went through a process of serial succussions and dilutions usually exceeding, in theory, Avogadro’s limit. Skeptics commonly assume that UMPs are indistinguishable from placebo and from each other. We find, in this 2003 thermo luminescence study of UMPs published in Physica A that: | + | Let me first address the argument of implausibility, the core issue in this 200 year-old dispute, which focuses in particular on the fact that homeopaths use ultra-molecular preparations. Ultra Molecular Preparations or UMPs are prepared from solutions that went through a process of serial succussions and dilutions usually exceeding, in theory, Avogadro’s limit. Skeptics commonly assume that UMPs are indistinguishable from placebo and from each other. We find, in this 2003 thermoluminescence study of UMPs published in Physica A that: |
| //Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride 10// <sup>//-30//</sup> //have been irradiated by x-rays and gamma-rays. It was found that, despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro’s number, the emitted light was specific of the original salts dissolved initially.// | //Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride 10// <sup>//-30//</sup> //have been irradiated by x-rays and gamma-rays. It was found that, despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro’s number, the emitted light was specific of the original salts dissolved initially.// | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| Now that we know that UMPs are more than just water with peculiar and totally unexpected physical-chemical properties, let’s look at another of skeptic common assumption, namely that UMPs are “diluted to the point that no active ingredient remains.” Again skeptics are contradicted by modern scientific research. The authors of this 2010 paper wrote: | Now that we know that UMPs are more than just water with peculiar and totally unexpected physical-chemical properties, let’s look at another of skeptic common assumption, namely that UMPs are “diluted to the point that no active ingredient remains.” Again skeptics are contradicted by modern scientific research. The authors of this 2010 paper wrote: | ||
| - | //We have demonstrated for the first time by Transmission Electron Microscopy, … <wrap hi>the presence of physical entities</wrap> in these extreme dilutions, in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals and their aggregates. Here you can see pictures of Stannum metallicum or tin in dilutions equivalent to 10// <sup>//-60//</sup> //and 10// <sup>//-400//</sup>. | + | //We have demonstrated for the first time by Transmission Electron Microscopy, … <wrap hi>the presence of physical entities</wrap> in these extreme dilutions, in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals and their aggregates.// |
| + | |||
| + | Here you can see pictures of Stannum metallicum or tin in dilutions equivalent to 10<sup>-60</sup> and 10 <sup>-400</sup>. | ||
| In another paper recently published in the high impact journal //Langmuir//, which is the journal of surfaces and colloids of the American Chemical Society, whose motto is -- “the most trusted, the most cited and the most read”. The authors wrote: | In another paper recently published in the high impact journal //Langmuir//, which is the journal of surfaces and colloids of the American Chemical Society, whose motto is -- “the most trusted, the most cited and the most read”. The authors wrote: | ||
en/misc/talk-saine-novella.txt · Last modified: 2018/07/24 11:04 by legatum
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
