*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1239
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2019, 11:36:23 PM »
A little more history on this Wolfson character. This from Schadewald's book:

"Once again, the flat-earthers were trying to get organized.  In the December 1883 issue of Cosmos, Hampden reported that a Zetetic Society was then being formed.  Prospective subscribers were instructed to write to “the President, The Zetetic Society, Welney House, Haverstock Hill, London, or the Editor, Cosmos, Balham, Surrey.” The former was Rowbotham’s home address, the latter Hampden’s.  This time, a Zetetic Society was successfully formed, with Rowbotham as President and H. Ossipoff Wolfson, a recent emigrant from Russia, as founding Secretary.  As for Cosmos, it folded immediately.
Little resulted from the Zetetic Society, partly because the earlier zetetic momentum had been largely lost and partly because of a serious defection.  H. Ossipoff Wolfson had never doubted the earth’s sphericity until he met “Parallax” in September 1883.  Overwhelmed by his forceful personality, Wolfson became Rowbotham’s enthusiastic convert and intimate acquaintance, so trusted that Rowbotham selected him as Secretary of the new Zetetic Society.  After working with “Parallax” for six months, however, Wolfson was severely disillusioned.  He had looked into the Hampden–Wallace wager and found the zetetic explanation wanting; furthermore, he was severely troubled by Rowbotham’s claims for his patent medicine.  He went to Proctor and offered to expose Rowbotham in the pages of Knowledge.  Proctor ran the first installment in the March 28, 1884 issue.
Unfortunately, Wolfson wrote like a Russian novelist.  After two wordy and convoluted installments, he was still backing up to get started.  At that point Proctor received a letter from Howard Rumney, Rowbotham’s solicitor, threatening legal action.  Proctor was convinced that the threat was a bluff, but the series never resumed. “

https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Chapter_03.html

So Wolfson was, in fact, the Secretary of the Zetetic Society for a time. The expose Wolfson started in ‘Knowledge’ after he became disillusioned with Rowbotham and his philosophies, was called “The Flat Earth and Her Moulder”. As mentioned above, two parts were published before legal action was taken by Rowbotham. (Seems like everybody was suing everybody back then)

Both parts can be found here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=PRIoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=the+flat+earth+and+her+moulder&source=bl&ots=8vNVQrLNAf&sig=mxnw_1qG6QkXZ5jwXO-ZZR1cAZ8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwitiNa8qenfAhVHlVQKHd6BBc4Q6AEwBHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Part I: Page 213
Part II: Page 233

TFES.org does have a reference to Wolfson here under the Literature page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Literature
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #41 on: January 13, 2019, 12:12:18 AM »
Seeing as Ossipoff Wolfson was not a doctor and had no experience with phosphorous, or any standing to contradict the medical claims in literature, in my opinion it sounds like he was deserving of being sued for calling Rowbotham a snake-oil salesman.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #42 on: January 13, 2019, 12:14:31 AM »
https://teens.drugabuse.gov/blog/post/coca-colas-scandalous-past

I could believe that Rowbotham had a successful drug business. 

Maybe he was adding a 'nip' of something else to his brew and his customers were just a bit addicted after a while.
The drug business was probably 'legal' back then as well.  A hit of cocaine plus caffeine probably would take your headache away, or at least make it so you just didn't care if your head hurt or not.
Maybe he put in a wiff of phosphorous once in a while as well.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1239
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2019, 01:16:27 AM »
Seeing as Ossipoff Wolfson was not a doctor and had no experience with phosphorous, or any standing to contradict the medical claims in literature, in my opinion it sounds like he was deserving of being sued for calling Rowbotham a snake-oil salesman.

I just find it interesting that Rowbotham's trusted secretary of the Zetetic Society turned on him just 6 months after meeting him. I suppose we'll never know why.

I think the jury is still out on Rowbotham's doctor claim. There's no record of him getting formal training as an MD, though such training could be hands on and one could call themselves an MD. It wasn't until the UK formed the General Medical Council in the 1850's where formal registrations as MD's were required. This from the GMC site:

"1841 Census estimates suggest a third of all doctors in England were unqualified. And back then professional titles were usually local. This meant a doctor from Glasgow may not be able to practise elsewhere. In short, there was no single way of saying who was a doctor in the UK (including Ireland at that time) and who was not. That's where we came in."

https://www.gmc-uk.org/about/who-we-are/our-history

As for other high academic honors, the UK didn't start offering "PhD's" until 1917, long after Rowbotham's death.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2019, 02:11:29 AM »
In the sources I cited, they refer to the phosphorus being mixed with opium.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2019, 03:22:29 AM »
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Opium-in-Victorian-Britain/

I guess years ago you could go to your doctor and immediately get something for 'what ails ya'.  If a particularly troubled individual came in you could just take your phosphorus 'tonic' and splash in a little Laudanum.  That way it wouldn't matter if any disease was cured or not.  Your patient wouldn't be 'feeling any pain' and would have a strong inclination to keep coming back for more. 
Any 'doctor' likes that kind of repeat business. 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2019, 05:56:15 PM »
You need to provide evidence that phosphorous doesn't work, not belief. Are all the physcians who have used it in practice with success lying then?

https://books.google.com/books?id=IhlFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA237#v=onepage&q&f=false

Are all of these case studies lies?

An article where someone believes it doesn't work, or a quote someone who admits that their own experience with phosphorous was limited, but who believes that it probably would not work is not evidence. Have they conducted trials with it? Have they shown it to be ineffective? If not, then such a statement is not evidence. Maybe they just think that drugs and pain killers are better.

You are calling the doctors who have reported success with phosphorous liars. And that their claims and case studies of resolving some medical conditions rapidly with phosphorous as false. Prove it.

Where are the evidence-based studies showing phosphorous to be useless for anyone? An evidence-less quote or opinion by a drug pusher means very little in the face of evidence that it does work.
Where are the evidence-based studies showing phosphorus to be effective? All you've done is given us a list of 35 patients who were treated by phosphorus in the year 1875. That is a tiny sample size to base the efficacy of phosphorus on. We don't even know whether they got the same treatment.
Also, if you read the sentence right after the description of Rowbotham's phosphorous doings, the author himself thinks it's a medicine to do away with.



You said yourself this is a medical text, the author himself is probably a doctor, and here he's presented with all these cases of phosphorous cures, yet he's dismissing it. That can't be without reason.

If you scroll up in his text the author is describing in the previous section how very poisonous phosphorous is if used incorrectly.



He's not calling those doctors who claim success with it liars. But you are.

You do realize the phosphorus poisoning he's talking about is with elemental phosphorus, not the phosphoric acid used by others. If you read WRI's article, it actually talks about that. I never called them liars, I'm merely being skeptical about the evidence, especially considering not only were the results published in 1875, that was also the year the organization was founded, and you've provided no evidence following it up, nothing current from the medical community.
I literally never called them liars.

Then what are you calling them? The doctors are claiming that the symptoms of the issue resolved very rapidly upon taking phosphorous, and there was a list of people who were cured, or at least benefited, from phosphorous, with descriptions.

Either the doctors are lying or phosphorous treatment is helpful. One or the other.

It's not that simple Tom, surely you've heard of the placebo effect. And there are a lot of lurking variables, like lifestyle, what exact treatment and dosage was used (as I pointed out earlier, there seems to be some variation in treatments, like one doctor mixed the acid with tea, and another dispensed pills, and with WRI's and RonJ's posts, was opium used?), etc.
Quote
I am beginning to see a pattern here in your worldview. "Everything new is a conspiracy."

No. You are rejecting evidence-based medical studies in favor of an opinion on the internet. You apparently have no idea what evidence is and is not. In order to contradict those studies you need to provide a study of equal or greater thoroughness and sophistication to contradict it.

If you cannot provide such evidence, then you have none.

Why not just be honest and admit that you have no evidence at all except for someone's evidence-less opinion?

Evidence-based medical studies? Maybe if you looked at your own evidence you'd find it's just a list of cases where phosphorus was used. Don't know how you get a medical study out of that. Was there a randomization of the experimental units (i.e. the patients). Was there a control group? Was a placebo used? Was the same treatment even used for all the patients in your list? Phosphorus treatment is a rather vague and general term. What levels of dosage were tested with the treatments? And most importantly, has your "evidence-based medical study" ever been replicated? Don't just throw around words without knowing what they mean.
We are smarter than those scientists.
I see multiple contradicting explanations. You guys should have a pow-wow and figure out how your model works.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2019, 11:52:23 PM »
Where are the evidence-based studies showing phosphorus to be effective? All you've done is given us a list of 35 patients who were treated by phosphorus in the year 1875. That is a tiny sample size to base the efficacy of phosphorus on. We don't even know whether they got the same treatment.

You have given us zero case studies on phosphorous. The fact that the issues were resolved for those people in a very short amount of time upon taking phosphorous is evidence enough. Where is your evidence that it is faked, the doctors were slipping in opium or whatever, and that these doctors, and Rowbotham, are shams?

Quote
Evidence-based medical studies? Maybe if you looked at your own evidence you'd find it's just a list of cases where phosphorus was used. Don't know how you get a medical study out of that. Was there a randomization of the experimental units (i.e. the patients). Was there a control group? Was a placebo used? Was the same treatment even used for all the patients in your list? Phosphorus treatment is a rather vague and general term. What levels of dosage were tested with the treatments? And most importantly, has your "evidence-based medical study" ever been replicated? Don't just throw around words without knowing what they mean.

Dosage is discussed in the texts.

If you can't contradict the claims of the doctors with evidence of equal or greater power, then you have no evidence. Your speculation is not evidence. I would suggest learning what evidence is. It is not speculation. It's nice that you are skeptical. But you have no evidence to base your accusations on. No evidence. None. Once you can show evidence, you may suggest that all of these doctors are liars.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 12:08:29 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #48 on: January 14, 2019, 11:37:35 PM »
Where are the evidence-based studies showing phosphorus to be effective? All you've done is given us a list of 35 patients who were treated by phosphorus in the year 1875. That is a tiny sample size to base the efficacy of phosphorus on. We don't even know whether they got the same treatment.

You have given us zero case studies on phosphorous. The fact that the issues were resolved for those people in a very short amount of time upon taking phosphorous is evidence enough. Where is your evidence that it is faked, the doctors were slipping in opium or whatever, and that these doctors, and Rowbotham, are shams?

Tom, your evidence isn't perfect, it doesn't even approach a controlled, rigorous study. There could have been a placebo effect at play. Some lurking variables like lifestyle, age, etc. could have also had an effect. Indeed, if you actually looked at the tables, only 16 patients reported a cure, 1 a partial cure, 9 relief, 1 improvement, 2 temporary improvement, 5 no improvement, and one case actually worsened with the phosphorus! Even better, take a look at this table, from your own source:

That's a lot of diseases reported from the patients, some patients having multiple nervous ailments, are you now going to claim phosphorus as some neuralgia panacea? How do you interpret the results now? Just because a majority of the patients reported an improvement or cure doesn't make it good evidence. There are too many loose ends in the evidence you've provided to make a conclusion without more data, which you haven't provided. I'm not calling the doctors liars, it's just disingenuous of you to present a list as a study , and call it evidence.

Quote
Evidence-based medical studies? Maybe if you looked at your own evidence you'd find it's just a list of cases where phosphorus was used. Don't know how you get a medical study out of that. Was there a randomization of the experimental units (i.e. the patients). Was there a control group? Was a placebo used? Was the same treatment even used for all the patients in your list? Phosphorus treatment is a rather vague and general term. What levels of dosage were tested with the treatments? And most importantly, has your "evidence-based medical study" ever been replicated? Don't just throw around words without knowing what they mean.

Dosage is discussed in the texts.

If you can't contradict the claims of the doctors with evidence of equal or greater power, then you have no evidence. Your speculation is not evidence. I would suggest learning what evidence is. It is not speculation. It's nice that you are skeptical. But you have no evidence to base your accusations on. No evidence. None. Once you can show evidence, you may suggest that all of these doctors are liars.

Speculation? You claimed your data was an evidence-based medical study. I said your data was merely a list of patients and I gave you the criteria of what a study is and isn't. Out of that barrage of questions, you were only able to address one, so here they are a little more clearer.

How were the experimental units organized in the experiment, by randomization, blocking, or matched pairs?

Was there a control group?

Was a placebo used?

Was the same treatment even used for all the patients given the variation of treatments from your own sources, from solutions of phosphoric acid to a mixture of phosphoric acid and tea, to pills.

Was your "evidence-based medical study" ever replicated?

Bonus Question: Was any form of blinding used?

If you can't answer those questions, then it's not a medical study. In fact, if you read the title of the page of of your "evidence-based medical study," it says
"Tabulated List of cases Treated with Free Phosphorus," nowhere do I see the word study.

I never claimed my questions based on the definition of a study, or what you call speculation was evidence, I'm merely questioning your evidence, and frankly, your evidence is rather weak to support your claims. You're claiming phosphorus has curative properties towards neuralgia. Now, a general rule of thumb in writing research is finding sources relative to your claims, for example, if you write an art paper about cubism, a lot of your sources might be art critics in the 20's. What you're saying is phosphorus can cure people of nerve ailments, medicine is a very dynamic field, yet your source is 124 years old, is not even a study, and does not have any studies corroborating its claims, not then, nor now, nor any time in between. Your source is not proportional to your claims.
We are smarter than those scientists.
I see multiple contradicting explanations. You guys should have a pow-wow and figure out how your model works.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #49 on: January 16, 2019, 12:27:17 AM »
Ok, Tom, after reviewing the first several pieces of evidence you presented on the use of phosphorus, I am calling bullshit on its curative properties.

First, the authors of the articles make statements to efficacy in pain relief. Mainly nerve pain. Using phosphorus to relieve nerve pain is not a cure for a disease. It is equivalent to using tylenol to "cure" a headache. It doesnt cure it. It alleviates the pain. Go back and reread what the authors say in your so called evidence.

I will get to the rest of your evidence, now that I bothered to read them fully, after you called out the guy in the other post about data on Jupiter.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #50 on: January 16, 2019, 12:29:00 AM »
It is quite convenient for Rowbotham as quoted in the first piece of evidence to have forgotten the preparation method for the phosphoric acid, isnt it? And it's quite convenient that you didnt include that in your image snippet. Dishonesty.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #51 on: January 16, 2019, 12:44:50 AM »
After reading the last book you cited (the one with tables), I found that the author described phosphorus as purely a "therapeutic" treatment in the relief of neuralgia, or nerve pain. This is not a cure all for tuberculosis, cholera, and the like as is printed in other media of the time.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #52 on: January 16, 2019, 12:46:49 AM »
As noted in Peter's post with the link to the image of the Birley Phosphorus, it claims it feeds the brain and strengthens the nerves. No, it's a pain reliever at best.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8694
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #53 on: January 16, 2019, 12:58:16 AM »
Can you not quadruple post? There is an edit button.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8694
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #54 on: January 17, 2019, 04:55:52 PM »
Alright, have a warning for abusing the report feature. As much as you think, me moderating threads is not off-topic.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #55 on: January 18, 2019, 02:57:39 PM »
Where are the evidence-based studies showing phosphorus to be effective? All you've done is given us a list of 35 patients who were treated by phosphorus in the year 1875. That is a tiny sample size to base the efficacy of phosphorus on. We don't even know whether they got the same treatment.

You have given us zero case studies on phosphorous. The fact that the issues were resolved for those people in a very short amount of time upon taking phosphorous is evidence enough. Where is your evidence that it is faked, the doctors were slipping in opium or whatever, and that these doctors, and Rowbotham, are shams?

Tom, your evidence isn't perfect, it doesn't even approach a controlled, rigorous study. There could have been a placebo effect at play. Some lurking variables like lifestyle, age, etc. could have also had an effect. Indeed, if you actually looked at the tables, only 16 patients reported a cure, 1 a partial cure, 9 relief, 1 improvement, 2 temporary improvement, 5 no improvement, and one case actually worsened with the phosphorus! Even better, take a look at this table, from your own source:

That's a lot of diseases reported from the patients, some patients having multiple nervous ailments, are you now going to claim phosphorus as some neuralgia panacea? How do you interpret the results now? Just because a majority of the patients reported an improvement or cure doesn't make it good evidence. There are too many loose ends in the evidence you've provided to make a conclusion without more data, which you haven't provided. I'm not calling the doctors liars, it's just disingenuous of you to present a list as a study , and call it evidence.

Quote
Evidence-based medical studies? Maybe if you looked at your own evidence you'd find it's just a list of cases where phosphorus was used. Don't know how you get a medical study out of that. Was there a randomization of the experimental units (i.e. the patients). Was there a control group? Was a placebo used? Was the same treatment even used for all the patients in your list? Phosphorus treatment is a rather vague and general term. What levels of dosage were tested with the treatments? And most importantly, has your "evidence-based medical study" ever been replicated? Don't just throw around words without knowing what they mean.

Dosage is discussed in the texts.

If you can't contradict the claims of the doctors with evidence of equal or greater power, then you have no evidence. Your speculation is not evidence. I would suggest learning what evidence is. It is not speculation. It's nice that you are skeptical. But you have no evidence to base your accusations on. No evidence. None. Once you can show evidence, you may suggest that all of these doctors are liars.

Speculation? You claimed your data was an evidence-based medical study. I said your data was merely a list of patients and I gave you the criteria of what a study is and isn't. Out of that barrage of questions, you were only able to address one, so here they are a little more clearer.

How were the experimental units organized in the experiment, by randomization, blocking, or matched pairs?

Was there a control group?

Was a placebo used?

Was the same treatment even used for all the patients given the variation of treatments from your own sources, from solutions of phosphoric acid to a mixture of phosphoric acid and tea, to pills.

Was your "evidence-based medical study" ever replicated?

Bonus Question: Was any form of blinding used?

If you can't answer those questions, then it's not a medical study. In fact, if you read the title of the page of of your "evidence-based medical study," it says
"Tabulated List of cases Treated with Free Phosphorus," nowhere do I see the word study.

I never claimed my questions based on the definition of a study, or what you call speculation was evidence, I'm merely questioning your evidence, and frankly, your evidence is rather weak to support your claims. You're claiming phosphorus has curative properties towards neuralgia. Now, a general rule of thumb in writing research is finding sources relative to your claims, for example, if you write an art paper about cubism, a lot of your sources might be art critics in the 20's. What you're saying is phosphorus can cure people of nerve ailments, medicine is a very dynamic field, yet your source is 124 years old, is not even a study, and does not have any studies corroborating its claims, not then, nor now, nor any time in between. Your source is not proportional to your claims.

A controlled study is mainly needed when you don't know about the disease. Do you think the doctors involved didn't know anything about the diseases they were treating, and that it was perfectly normal for those diseases to cure rapidly on its own own after taking a new prescription, or that deliberating pain just goes away on its own with anything prescribed to the patient? That's ludicrous.

Evidence was provided, and you were not able to contradict it.

Ok, Tom, after reviewing the first several pieces of evidence you presented on the use of phosphorus, I am calling bullshit on its curative properties.

First, the authors of the articles make statements to efficacy in pain relief. Mainly nerve pain. Using phosphorus to relieve nerve pain is not a cure for a disease. It is equivalent to using tylenol to "cure" a headache. It doesnt cure it. It alleviates the pain. Go back and reread what the authors say in your so called evidence.

I read the material, you didn't. They do say that phosphorous cured.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 03:08:40 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #56 on: January 18, 2019, 03:13:07 PM »
Cured nerve pain. That is what they said. I did read it. I read even beyond what you snipped out. They did not say it cured cholera. It cured the pain. It alleviated symptoms. There is a difference.

Oh and besides the "violent venereal erections" and bloody emissions as evidence that it could be used as a libido improve. Lol sounds like something that would be great to take. "Why are you bloody down there, honey? Oh ya know, I had violent erection after trying to cure my tuberculosis."
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #57 on: January 18, 2019, 03:18:00 PM »
Cured nerve pain. That is what they said. I did read it. I read even beyond what you snipped out. They did not say it cured cholera. It cured the pain. It alleviated symptoms. There is a difference.

It clearly says that some people were cured, relieved, benefited, or agitated.


*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 216
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #58 on: January 18, 2019, 03:28:16 PM »
Where are the evidence-based studies showing phosphorus to be effective? All you've done is given us a list of 35 patients who were treated by phosphorus in the year 1875. That is a tiny sample size to base the efficacy of phosphorus on. We don't even know whether they got the same treatment.

You have given us zero case studies on phosphorous. The fact that the issues were resolved for those people in a very short amount of time upon taking phosphorous is evidence enough. Where is your evidence that it is faked, the doctors were slipping in opium or whatever, and that these doctors, and Rowbotham, are shams?

Tom, your evidence isn't perfect, it doesn't even approach a controlled, rigorous study. There could have been a placebo effect at play. Some lurking variables like lifestyle, age, etc. could have also had an effect. Indeed, if you actually looked at the tables, only 16 patients reported a cure, 1 a partial cure, 9 relief, 1 improvement, 2 temporary improvement, 5 no improvement, and one case actually worsened with the phosphorus! Even better, take a look at this table, from your own source:

That's a lot of diseases reported from the patients, some patients having multiple nervous ailments, are you now going to claim phosphorus as some neuralgia panacea? How do you interpret the results now? Just because a majority of the patients reported an improvement or cure doesn't make it good evidence. There are too many loose ends in the evidence you've provided to make a conclusion without more data, which you haven't provided. I'm not calling the doctors liars, it's just disingenuous of you to present a list as a study , and call it evidence.

Quote
Evidence-based medical studies? Maybe if you looked at your own evidence you'd find it's just a list of cases where phosphorus was used. Don't know how you get a medical study out of that. Was there a randomization of the experimental units (i.e. the patients). Was there a control group? Was a placebo used? Was the same treatment even used for all the patients in your list? Phosphorus treatment is a rather vague and general term. What levels of dosage were tested with the treatments? And most importantly, has your "evidence-based medical study" ever been replicated? Don't just throw around words without knowing what they mean.

Dosage is discussed in the texts.

If you can't contradict the claims of the doctors with evidence of equal or greater power, then you have no evidence. Your speculation is not evidence. I would suggest learning what evidence is. It is not speculation. It's nice that you are skeptical. But you have no evidence to base your accusations on. No evidence. None. Once you can show evidence, you may suggest that all of these doctors are liars.

Speculation? You claimed your data was an evidence-based medical study. I said your data was merely a list of patients and I gave you the criteria of what a study is and isn't. Out of that barrage of questions, you were only able to address one, so here they are a little more clearer.

How were the experimental units organized in the experiment, by randomization, blocking, or matched pairs?

Was there a control group?

Was a placebo used?

Was the same treatment even used for all the patients given the variation of treatments from your own sources, from solutions of phosphoric acid to a mixture of phosphoric acid and tea, to pills.

Was your "evidence-based medical study" ever replicated?

Bonus Question: Was any form of blinding used?

If you can't answer those questions, then it's not a medical study. In fact, if you read the title of the page of of your "evidence-based medical study," it says
"Tabulated List of cases Treated with Free Phosphorus," nowhere do I see the word study.

I never claimed my questions based on the definition of a study, or what you call speculation was evidence, I'm merely questioning your evidence, and frankly, your evidence is rather weak to support your claims. You're claiming phosphorus has curative properties towards neuralgia. Now, a general rule of thumb in writing research is finding sources relative to your claims, for example, if you write an art paper about cubism, a lot of your sources might be art critics in the 20's. What you're saying is phosphorus can cure people of nerve ailments, medicine is a very dynamic field, yet your source is 124 years old, is not even a study, and does not have any studies corroborating its claims, not then, nor now, nor any time in between. Your source is not proportional to your claims.

A controlled study is mainly needed when you don't know about the disease. Do you think the doctors involved didn't know anything about the disease they were treating, and that it was perfectly normal for those diseases to cure rapidly on its own own after taking a new prescription, or that deliberating pain just goes away on its own with anything prescribed to the patient? That's ludicrous.

Evidence was provided, and you were not able to contradict it.

If you google "controlled study" you'll quickly find that's not what it means. 

Here are a few definitions which came up...

- "A clinical trial in which a test agent is compared to a standard treatment with known effects. The control group may receive no treatment, active treatment, placebo or dose comparison concurrent control." https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/controlled+study

- "An experiment or clinical trial in which two groups are used for comparison purpose." https://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/abc/controlled-study.htm

- "A clinical study that includes a comparison (control) group. The comparison group receives a placebo, another treatment, or no treatment at all." https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/controlled-clinical-trial

From all the definitions I've seen, which essentially the same as above but in different words, not a single one said anything even remotely close to "A controlled study is mainly needed when you don't know about the disease."

Where did you pull your definition from?  Cite the source, too.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #59 on: January 18, 2019, 03:33:52 PM »
Studies with some people being untreated is unnecessary and unethical. People with late stage cancer don't just spontaneously cure themselves, for example. It would be unethical to give one person medicine that may help them, and withhold it from another patient with the same affliction, "just to see what will happen". The doctor knows what will happen, and that doctor knew that those people with chronic pain would continue to be in pain. It is the physician's prerogative to give their patients the best treatment option available.

"Controlled studies" are very often conducted by referring to the historic medical data of untreated patients with the same disease to compare to.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 03:48:29 PM by Tom Bishop »