Homeopathy does work

[Darat]

Sorry no prizes this time.

 

[Psiload]

It's not Luci again, is it?

Ding! Ding!

Give that man a kewpie doll!

 

[Perpetual Notion]

I thought I smelled socks. Curious, because it isn't laundry day.

 

[Darat]

If I didn't feel sorry for him I would find it funny, as it is I just find it a bit sad.

 

[Mojo]

Sorry no prizes this time.

Oh come on, last time Ashles got a year's supply of, er, absolutely nothing.

 

[Donks]

OMFG How STUPID can lucianarchy be? You'd think s/he'd at least pretend to be a skeptic for the first 5 posts before going into "real skeptic" mode.

 

[Darat]

Oh come on, last time Ashles got a year's supply of, er, absolutely nothing.

OK - you can have double his prize.

 

[Perpetual Notion]

Here Mojo. Have some balloons!

 

[Mojo]

OMFG How STUPID can lucianarchy be? You'd think s/he'd at least pretend to be a skeptic for the first 5 posts before going into "real skeptic" mode.

well, last time he/she/it gave the game away by insulting Larsen in his/her/its first post.

 

[Mojo]

Here Mojo. Have some balloons!

Ooh! Balloons!

But my birthday was yesterday.

 

[Perpetual Notion]

Well, happy birthday to ya!! Have a celebratory drink for me! (But not diluted beyond 2x please )

 

[Vikram]

BTW, you're not correct in asserting that science has no explanation for homeopathy. It has, in fact, many:

To name but a few:

Natural remission
Cyclic nature of disease
Misdiagnosis
Placebo effect
Hawthorne effect
Wishful thinking
Confirmation bias
Unaccounted for confounders (such as concurrent real treatment)
Confimation bias
Publication bias
Fabrication and other fraud
...

Thanks for the list, Anders. I think I'll cut and paste it somewhere on my computer for ready reference in case of debates about homeopathy.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Vikram,

Of course I should have written "...science has explanations for why homeopathy appears to work to its proponents" or words to that effect...

 

[Mojo]

Of course I should have written "...science has explanations for why homeopathy appears to work to its proponents" or words to that effect...

Oh no. These are the scientific explanations for it.

 

[Homeo Man]

Oh no. These are the scientific explanations for it.

Dr. MAS was so busy in the seminar. It was not possible for him to visit this forum. Proceeding is available at

http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=34

I hope, he will soon visit this foru.

 

[Zep]

Dr. MAS was so busy in the seminar. It was not possible for him to visit this forum. Proceeding is available at

http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=34

I hope, he will soon visit this foru.

This is the second thread where you have posted the same wording and reference. Any more and you will probably be considered a spammer...

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Mojo,

It seems that when I added the "appears to work bit" the original intent got lost in my rephrase without the negative...

So to clear that up (I hope):

"There are many scientifically well-founded explanations supported by replicable evidence for why homeopathy appears to its proponents to work as they claim, even though based on all available evidence and simple logic, it can safely be stated that homeopathy does not work in the sense of having any physiological curative effects whatsoever. Among, but not limited to, those well-founded scientific explanations for any apparent efficacy of the Magicke water/ethanol/lactose are:
Placebo effect
Hawthorne effect
etc...."

...or words to that effect.

And, as always, I would like to add that even if one day one replicated DBPC trial or other properly conducted scientific investigation ever were to show statistically significant efficacy above and beyond placebo of a particular homeopathic remedy, it would still only be evidence that paricular remedy "works" - it would not by any means prove that all homeopathy works. However one does get the impression from homeopaths that when every time they bleeve some study or trial is evidence for the efficacy of one remedy, then they see that as proof of the efficacy of any and all homeopathic remedies - which, like pretty much anything else they spout, is pure nonsense. It would be like saying because insulin works for most diabetics then any and all scientific evidence-based medicine ever proposed and formulated works as advertised for everyone. Like their dilutions, there is no end to the the errors of reasoning of homeopaths it seems...

 

[SezMe]

And, as always, I would like to add that even if one day one replicated DBPC trial or other properly conducted scientific investigation ever were to show statistically significant efficacy above and beyond placebo of a particular homeopathic remedy, it would still only be evidence that paricular remedy "works" - it would not by any means prove that all homeopathy works.

"... "it would still only be evidence that that particular remedy 'works'" [my emphasis].

This evidence would be most provocative and would engender a multitude of studies to confirm or reject the remedy. Let's give this process a name: Science. As that process proceeded, with all its inherent problems would we ever come to a tentative conclusion.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

"... "it would still only be evidence that that particular remedy 'works'" [my emphasis].

This evidence would be most provocative and would engender a multitude of studies to confirm or reject the remedy. Let's give this process a name: Science. As that process proceeded, with all its inherent problems would we ever come to a tentative conclusion.

and before one of them pops up with a single study showing effects creeping into statistical significance, let's remond them that it is independent replication that eliminates the inevitable statistical flukes and, shall we say, over-generous interpretation of the results that seems to characterise homeopathic papers.

 

[Mojo]

And, as always, I would like to add that even if one day one replicated DBPC trial or other properly conducted scientific investigation ever were to show statistically significant efficacy above and beyond placebo of a particular homeopathic remedy, it would still only be evidence that paricular remedy "works" - it would not by any means prove that all homeopathy works.

And, of course, when studies of this sort are carried out and the results don't support homeopathy, the only conclusions drawn are the specific ones being tested for. For example, Edzard Ernst and colleagues recently published a study showing that homeopathic arnica is no more effective than placebo as a treatment for post-operative pain and bruising (specifically for pain and bruising following hand surgery). Being proper scientists, they just concluded that this particular remedy is ineffective for this particular condition, as that's all the study actually shows. They didn't make any blanket assertion that homeopathy doesn't work.