Posted: Jun 17, 2010 3:56 pm
by Paul
GenesForLife wrote:
DST70 wrote:GenesForLife -

You're right, although just from a quick look those 3 clinical trials have very small sample sizes and show possible correlations - it's hardly a meta analysis, and it's the sort of criticism that I see studies of alternative medicine attract. But yes, I was wrong when I said there was no known physical pathology, my bad.

As long as diagnosis and treatment is centered around discrete disease entities with homogeneous causation and progression, it underplays symptomology that greatly varies from case to case and from patient to patient. It underestimates variation in human health and illness, variation in real world cases that clinical trials can not so easily replicate.

Those are NOT clinical trials, clinical trials are those which are designed to test drug efficacy, these are just good old scientific studies, with focus on empiricism, and those don't need meta-analysis because they only serve as a scientific foundation for further work, please learn the difference between medicine and the scientific knowledge that drives medical progress. Thanks.

The reason Homeopathy doesn't work is that it's physicochemical/biological "foundations" are bullshit, nuff said.


Which was why I kept pushing Nancy for some answers about testing homoeopathic medicines in the lab rather than clinical trials.

If there is a difference between a sample of a medicine 'properly' prepared according to the rules of homoeopathy and that hasn't been shaken properly, then that difference should be detectable in the laboratory.

Why aren't particle physicists spending as much time and money looking for water's 'memory' as they are for the Higgs boson? Because the idea is complete tosh - that's why.