Posted: Jun 13, 2010 6:04 pm
Shrunk wrote:You are belabouring the point, yes, and not refuting any of the claims made against homeopathy.
I haven't read all of this thread so forgive me if I missed something. As far as I know though, the claims against homeopathy (or acupuncture, qi gong therapy etc) stem from (1) inconclusive/poor performance in RCTs, and (2) implausability of the proposed therapeutic mechanism. (If there are more I'd be interested to hear them.) As evidence based medicine is the dominant model these days, (2) is not a sufficient reason to discount a treatment, but (1) is.
The RCT has only become the benchmark test since the 60s after the thalidomide disaster, and it has its shortcomings, just like everything else. I think TBM has it right in saying:
"... my post pointed out the issue with evidence based, repeatable systems in that there is much that gets missed, just because its not possible to capture all of reality in a neat bundle and describe it in its completenes."
Would it be too cynical of me to say that that already gives me an idea of the quality of scientific research supporting qigong?
Ha! I honestly couldn't say what the quality is like, I haven't examined any myself. They might end up falling into the pseudoscience category.
I take it you're a medical professional? Do you mind if I ask in what field?Psychiatry.
I get your username now
Thanks,
David