Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #60 on: January 18, 2019, 03:37:51 PM »
I'll add this to the list of things Tom doesn't understand.

A controlled double-blind study is always preferable as it eliminates factors such as the placebo effect which can be quite powerful - if people are told that they're being given something which will make them feel better then they often do even if the medicine itself has no effect. That's pretty much how homeopathy works. A double blind study with a control eliminates that factor.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 216
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #61 on: January 18, 2019, 03:42:00 PM »
When a disease is known, controlled studies with some people receiving placebos is unnecessary and unethical. People with stage 4 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 would continue to be in pain.

I won't be drawn into a pointless debate about the ethics or necessity of controlled studies.

I am requesting that you clarify why your claimed definition of the term that you used "controlled study" is not consistent with the definitions I have seen on medical sites on the internet, and what your source is for your definition.
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: 6422
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #62 on: January 18, 2019, 03:54:15 PM »
I'll add this to the list of things Tom doesn't understand.

A controlled double-blind study is always preferable as it eliminates factors such as the placebo effect which can be quite powerful - if people are told that they're being given something which will make them feel better then they often do even if the medicine itself has no effect. That's pretty much how homeopathy works. A double blind study with a control eliminates that factor.

Placebos don't cure chronic diseases overnight. Please point out a placebo that cured a disease.

I am requesting that you clarify why your claimed definition of the term that you used "controlled study" is not consistent with the definitions I have seen on medical sites on the internet, and what your source is for your definition.

I believe that you are misinformed on the matter. A great number of the controlled studies just refer to previous literature and cases on the disease as their control group. It's not actually necessary to continuously repeat the action of not treating people and causing them to suffer.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 07:27:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #63 on: January 18, 2019, 04:06:35 PM »
Placebos don't cure chronic diseases overnight. Please point out a placebo that cured a disease.
Nor do medicines. You again show in this post you don't understand what a double blind medical trial is and why it's important.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #64 on: January 18, 2019, 04:15:04 PM »
I'll add this to the list of things Tom doesn't understand.

A controlled double-blind study is always preferable as it eliminates factors such as the placebo effect which can be quite powerful - if people are told that they're being given something which will make them feel better then they often do even if the medicine itself has no effect. That's pretty much how homeopathy works. A double blind study with a control eliminates that factor.

Placebos don't cure chronic diseases overnight. Please point out a placebo that cured a disease.

This thread isn't a placebo debate, if you want to do that, make a new thread.
I am requesting that you clarify why your claimed definition of the term that you used "controlled study" is not consistent with the definitions I have seen on medical sites on the internet, and what your source is for your definition.

You are clearly misinformed on the matter. A great number of the controlled studies just refer to previous literature and cases on the disease as their control group.

Clearly you are misinformed on what controlled studies are. Maybe check out rif.org and their resources to help you overcome the inability to understand what Bad Puppy already said. (Thank you junker!). And what are your sources Tom, speculation about a "great number of controlled studies"and what they refer to if not a control group for that specific study is not evidence.

It's not actually necessary to continuously repeat the action of not treating people and causing them to suffer.
Sources? Unless you're a doctor and have a medical degree, your speculation of procedures undertaken during a study is not evidence, and neither is your opinion of the ethics of studies.
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 Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 216
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #65 on: January 18, 2019, 04:15:24 PM »
I'll add this to the list of things Tom doesn't understand.

A controlled double-blind study is always preferable as it eliminates factors such as the placebo effect which can be quite powerful - if people are told that they're being given something which will make them feel better then they often do even if the medicine itself has no effect. That's pretty much how homeopathy works. A double blind study with a control eliminates that factor.

Placebos don't cure chronic diseases overnight. Please point out a placebo that cured a disease.

I am requesting that you clarify why your claimed definition of the term that you used "controlled study" is not consistent with the definitions I have seen on medical sites on the internet, and what your source is for your definition.

You are clearly misinformed on the matter. A great number of the controlled studies just refer to previous literature and cases on the disease as their control group. It's not actually necessary to continuously repeat the action of not treating people and causing them to suffer.

Are you having trouble comprehending my question?  Let me make this simple..... Choose A, or B.  A single letter response would suffice.

Definition of clinical study:

A) A controlled study is mainly needed when you don't know about the disease.
B) A clinical study that includes a comparison (control) group. The comparison group receives a placebo, another treatment, or no treatment at all.
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: 6422
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #66 on: January 18, 2019, 04:18:53 PM »
Placebos don't cure chronic diseases overnight. Please point out a placebo that cured a disease.
Nor do medicines. You again show in this post you don't understand what a double blind medical trial is and why it's important.

If there is a body of research and knowledge on the matter, on what happens to people with a chronic illnesses when you give them nothing or something non-effective, then you already have that research, and conducing that full study is not actually necessary. There are many studies which refer to previous literature as their control.

In a previous example, phosphorous cured a hopeless case of disease. Did that doctor need to give someone a placebo and sentence them to death before reporting his successful result? No.

Quote from: Bad Puppy link=topic=11825.msg179935#mAsg179935AC
Are you having trouble comprehending my question?  Let me make this simple..... Choose A, or B.  A single letter response would suffice.

Definition of clinical study:

A) A controlled study is mainly needed when you don't know about the disease.
B) A clinical study that includes a comparison (control) group. The comparison group receives a placebo, another treatment, or no treatment at all.

None of that is needed. The doctors know what a hopeless case is, and the doctors know what a chronic disease is.

You are playing difficult because you have no evidence to contradict the links given, and really have no standing argument on the matter.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 04:29:27 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #67 on: January 18, 2019, 04:25:20 PM »
Tom, neuralgia isnt a disease. So therefore phosphorus cannot cure something that isnt a disease. Go back and read the actual text that goes with the table, not the table. It explicitly states by the author that the pain was gone. It does not state that it was cured.

Neuralgia is nerve pain. That is all it is. Nothing less. Nothing more. Unless you have a definition from somewhere else that I am unaware of?
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 216
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #68 on: January 18, 2019, 04:31:12 PM »
Placebos don't cure chronic diseases overnight. Please point out a placebo that cured a disease.
Nor do medicines. You again show in this post you don't understand what a double blind medical trial is and why it's important.

If there is a body of research and knowledge on the matter, on what happens to people with a chronic illnesses when you give them nothing or something non-effective, then you already have that research, and conducing that full study is not actually necessary. There are many studies which refer to previous literature as their control.

In a previous example, phosphorous cured a hopeless case of disease. Did that doctor need to give someone a placebo and sentence them to death before reporting his successful result? No.

Quote from: Bad Puppy link=topic=11825.msg179935#mAsg179935AC
Are you having trouble comprehending my question?  Let me make this simple..... Choose A, or B.  A single letter response would suffice.

Definition of clinical study:

A) A controlled study is mainly needed when you don't know about the disease.
B) A clinical study that includes a comparison (control) group. The comparison group receives a placebo, another treatment, or no treatment at all.

None of that is needed. The doctors know what a hopeless case is, and the doctors know what a chronic disease is.

You are being difficult because you have no evidence to contradict the links given, and really have no standing argument on the matter.

If you don't understand what a clinical study actually is, it means you can't understand their relevance.  And if you can't understand that, then you're clearly not qualified to argue for the validity of his phosphorus treatments.
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: 6422
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #69 on: January 18, 2019, 04:36:38 PM »
Tom, neuralgia isnt a disease. So therefore phosphorus cannot cure something that isnt a disease. Go back and read the actual text that goes with the table, not the table. It explicitly states by the author that the pain was gone. It does not state that it was cured.

It does say "cured." If they weren't cured, but it was helpful, they would be under the "relieved" section.

If you don't understand what a clinical study actually is, it means you can't understand their relevance.  And if you can't understand that, then you're clearly not qualified to argue for the validity of his phosphorus treatments.

This is the condition that was cured:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/trigeminal-neuralgia/symptoms-causes/syc-20353344

Quote
Trigeminal neuralgia is a chronic pain condition that affects the trigeminal nerve, which carries sensation from your face to your brain. If you have trigeminal neuralgia, even mild stimulation of your face — such as from brushing your teeth or putting on makeup — may trigger a jolt of excruciating pain.

An argument that these people were just accidentally cured by their cup of orange juice that morning when they took the phospherous, or that the doctor only needed to give some other people with that condition some sugar pills to see that it's all the same, is a farce.

There is evidence for phosphorous, and it was not contradicted.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 04:41:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #70 on: January 18, 2019, 04:41:27 PM »
Um. That's still nerve pain. Nerve pain is not a disease.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #71 on: January 18, 2019, 04:43:22 PM »
At this point, we can argue it's a difference of semantics. Did it cure them of nerve pain? Ok, sure. Let's go with that. Did it cure a disease? No.

Did tylenol cure my headache? Yes. Did it cure my stress that caused the headache? No. Is a headache a disease? No. It is a symptom. Is it pain? Yes. Can pain be cured? In a sense of the word, sure.

Can pain be so debilitating that people cannot walk? Yes. But pain is still not a disease.
BobLawBlah.

Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #72 on: January 18, 2019, 09:04:03 PM »
At this point, we can argue it's a difference of semantics. Did it cure them of nerve pain? Ok, sure. Let's go with that. Did it cure a disease? No.

Did tylenol cure my headache? Yes. Did it cure my stress that caused the headache? No. Is a headache a disease? No. It is a symptom. Is it pain? Yes. Can pain be cured? In a sense of the word, sure.

Can pain be so debilitating that people cannot walk? Yes. But pain is still not a disease.
It has been established that, by the standards of the 19th century in which he practiced medicine, Samuel Birley Rowbotham was well within the mainstream of medical practice in prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain.  Perhaps a 21st century doctor who prescribed phosphorus would be considered a "quack" (not that modern allopathic medicine, which is to a large extent an arm of the pharmaceutical industry, is beyond question), but Rowbotham was not a 21st century doctor.  There are many remedies that were common in the 19th century that would be considered absurd today.  Maybe you should pick another fight because Tom has clearly bested you in this debate.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #73 on: January 18, 2019, 09:43:43 PM »
Yes, like using leeches to drain bad blood. There's a reason for why certain medical practices aren't used anymore. 1) They weren't effective or effective enough. 2) They were dangerous. 3) They just didnt work at all.

Being mainstream does not mean it is correct. That's the argument FEers use against REers all the time.
BobLawBlah.

Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #74 on: January 18, 2019, 09:49:42 PM »
Yes, like using leeches to drain bad blood. There's a reason for why certain medical practices aren't used anymore. 1) They weren't effective or effective enough. 2) They were dangerous. 3) They just didnt work at all.

Being mainstream does not mean it is correct. That's the argument FEers use against REers all the time.
The notion that phosphorus had medicinal properties was considered correct by many accredited doctors of the 19th century therefore the idea that Rowbotham's claim to be a doctor must have been fraudulent because he prescribed phosphorus has been refuted.  That is the only evidence for Rowbotham being a fraud that has been given so far thus we can say that, since that evidence has been refuted, there is no evidence that Rowbotham was a fraud.

Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #75 on: January 18, 2019, 11:11:51 PM »
Even if we concede that Rowbotham was a competent doctor (at the time he was working, we wouldn’t necessarily use his methods now), I’m not sure how that adds any credibility to his scientific ideas. There’s no evidence as far as I know that he worked professionally as a scientist and his ideas are clearly motivated by a misguided attempt to use the Bible as a science book. His ideas have been shown wrong and he has been largely forgotten by history.
I’m not clear how his competency as a doctor is relevant.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1179
    • View Profile
Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #76 on: January 18, 2019, 11:31:20 PM »
At this point, we can argue it's a difference of semantics. Did it cure them of nerve pain? Ok, sure. Let's go with that. Did it cure a disease? No.

Did tylenol cure my headache? Yes. Did it cure my stress that caused the headache? No. Is a headache a disease? No. It is a symptom. Is it pain? Yes. Can pain be cured? In a sense of the word, sure.

Can pain be so debilitating that people cannot walk? Yes. But pain is still not a disease.
It has been established that, by the standards of the 19th century in which he practiced medicine, Samuel Birley Rowbotham was well within the mainstream of medical practice in prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain. 

Has it been established though?  That prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain was well within the mainstream of medical practice back then? So far presented here have been a half a dozen or so Dr's and a few 'studies'. I'm not sure that qualifies as making an argument that it was the norm or mainstream even back then.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #77 on: January 19, 2019, 02:16:59 AM »
At this point, we can argue it's a difference of semantics. Did it cure them of nerve pain? Ok, sure. Let's go with that. Did it cure a disease? No.

Did tylenol cure my headache? Yes. Did it cure my stress that caused the headache? No. Is a headache a disease? No. It is a symptom. Is it pain? Yes. Can pain be cured? In a sense of the word, sure.

Can pain be so debilitating that people cannot walk? Yes. But pain is still not a disease.
It has been established that, by the standards of the 19th century in which he practiced medicine, Samuel Birley Rowbotham was well within the mainstream of medical practice in prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain. 

Has it been established though?  That prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain was well within the mainstream of medical practice back then? So far presented here have been a half a dozen or so Dr's and a few 'studies'. I'm not sure that qualifies as making an argument that it was the norm or mainstream even back then.
It was at least within the range of practices that would be considered acceptable by 19th century standards given the evidence we have seen (studies in professional journals and other doctors who attested to the efficacy of phosphorus as a treatment for chronic pain .)

Even if we concede that Rowbotham was a competent doctor (at the time he was working, we wouldn’t necessarily use his methods now), I’m not sure how that adds any credibility to his scientific ideas. There’s no evidence as far as I know that he worked professionally as a scientist and his ideas are clearly motivated by a misguided attempt to use the Bible as a science book. His ideas have been shown wrong and he has been largely forgotten by history.
I’m not clear how his competency as a doctor is relevant.
The notion that Rowbotham wasn't a real doctor is the line of attack used in this thread (and elsewhere) to erroneously attack his Zetetic method.  I agree that it is an ad hominem argument that has no bearing on the claims made in his studies on the shape of the Earth.

Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #78 on: January 19, 2019, 02:40:37 AM »
At this point, we can argue it's a difference of semantics. Did it cure them of nerve pain? Ok, sure. Let's go with that. Did it cure a disease? No.

Did tylenol cure my headache? Yes. Did it cure my stress that caused the headache? No. Is a headache a disease? No. It is a symptom. Is it pain? Yes. Can pain be cured? In a sense of the word, sure.

Can pain be so debilitating that people cannot walk? Yes. But pain is still not a disease.
It has been established that, by the standards of the 19th century in which he practiced medicine, Samuel Birley Rowbotham was well within the mainstream of medical practice in prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain. 

Has it been established though?  That prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain was well within the mainstream of medical practice back then? So far presented here have been a half a dozen or so Dr's and a few 'studies'. I'm not sure that qualifies as making an argument that it was the norm or mainstream even back then.
It was at least within the range of practices that would be considered acceptable by 19th century standards given the evidence we have seen (studies in professional journals and other doctors who attested to the efficacy of phosphorus as a treatment for chronic pain .)

Evidence? Studies? All Tom has presented us is a list of patients treated with phosphorus. And as I, and several others (Bad Puppy and AATW) have pointed out, a tabulated list is in no way equal to a controlled study. I have yet to see anyone in this thread present a study (a real study by its definition, not whatever Tom Bishop thinks a study is given his stubborn insistence to call the tabulated list he found a "study"). So unless you have some studies testing the effectiveness of phosphorus, there is no evidence. How do other doctors' claims to phosphorus in a few medical texts prove it's mainstream? Is that how you support claims of something mainstream? You just take a thin slice out of the voluminous literature of the medical field and say "It is thus mainstream!"?
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.

Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« Reply #79 on: January 19, 2019, 03:06:57 AM »
At this point, we can argue it's a difference of semantics. Did it cure them of nerve pain? Ok, sure. Let's go with that. Did it cure a disease? No.

Did tylenol cure my headache? Yes. Did it cure my stress that caused the headache? No. Is a headache a disease? No. It is a symptom. Is it pain? Yes. Can pain be cured? In a sense of the word, sure.

Can pain be so debilitating that people cannot walk? Yes. But pain is still not a disease.
It has been established that, by the standards of the 19th century in which he practiced medicine, Samuel Birley Rowbotham was well within the mainstream of medical practice in prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain. 

Has it been established though?  That prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain was well within the mainstream of medical practice back then? So far presented here have been a half a dozen or so Dr's and a few 'studies'. I'm not sure that qualifies as making an argument that it was the norm or mainstream even back then.
It was at least within the range of practices that would be considered acceptable by 19th century standards given the evidence we have seen (studies in professional journals and other doctors who attested to the efficacy of phosphorus as a treatment for chronic pain .)

Evidence? Studies? All Tom has presented us is a list of patients treated with phosphorus. And as I, and several others (Bad Puppy and AATW) have pointed out, a tabulated list is in no way equal to a controlled study. I have yet to see anyone in this thread present a study (a real study by its definition, not whatever Tom Bishop thinks a study is given his stubborn insistence to call the tabulated list he found a "study"). So unless you have some studies testing the effectiveness of phosphorus, there is no evidence. How do other doctors' claims to phosphorus in a few medical texts prove it's mainstream? Is that how you support claims of something mainstream? You just take a thin slice out of the voluminous literature of the medical field and say "It is thus mainstream!"?
This isn't a debate over the efficacy of phosphorus as a medicine.  That real doctors have been documented as having used phosphorus (and that there was reason to believe that it would work given the contemporaneous case studies Tom has provided) in that capacity is enough proof that Rowbotham's enthusiasm for phosphorus as a treatment for certain diseases does not prove ipso facto that he was not a real doctor (or a quack) as so many, eager to assassinate the character of a man whose ideas upset them, have asserted.  Case closed.