Posted: Jun 17, 2010 2:59 pm
by Dudely
DST70 wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:Why are we discussing real medicine?

For the sake of argument, let's just assume that there is absolutely no evidence for real medicine. All the information in peer-reviewed journals is made up and funded by money hungry Pharma companies, with drugs being pumped into people that are full of poison. With this terrible state of affairs in real medicine, every single patient that ever sees a real doctor dies instantly and painfully on the spot. In summary, real medicine not only has no evidence for it's practices and treatments, but it also has a 100% death rate as a result.

Now, how is this supposed to support homeopathy?

Homeopathy is said to be ineffective mostly because it gives inconclusive or poor results in clinical trials. Clinical trials are the product of a medical paradigm that assumes a 'normal' level of diversity in human health. It's focussed on diagnosing and grouping common symptoms, and doesn't acknowledge the variation of individual response to disease and treatment. It's not a surprise to me that homeopathy doesn't show a lot of success in clinical trials.


I seriously doubt that if there was evidence to show that homeopathy works that the mere fact that a clinical trial "doesn't acknowledge the variation of individual response to disease and treatment" would prevent that from coming to light. As I said earlier in this thread- if it does work there is a reason, and you should be able to figure out why and witness this happening.

That being said, wouldn't the variation of individual response to disease and treatment be a problem for ALL methods of treatment?