Balance in the survey
Surely in order to gain a balanced response and a survey outcome free from bias, "No" & "Don't Know" options should be available. (TW)
However, in real research it's normal to allow a "no" option or even a "maybe" or "don't know". If you provided alternatives, you'd be much more likely to get an accurate answer, even if it isn't the answer you were hoping for. (BR)
At this time we are not trying to discover what outcomes people have experienced from homeopathic treatment. To do that we would need to gather far more evidence than simply their view of their treatment. For example, it would be important to know who prescribed the treatment; to establish the degree of training the prescriber had received; to verify the existence of the prescriber; and so on.
The current survey is an attempt to establish only one piece of information: how many people in the UK believe that they have benefited from homeopathy, so to gather any other information is not only pointless, but would entail a lot of work sorting out the unnecessary answers and throwing them away. If you want to know the height of Beachy Head, you do not measure all the other cliffs. We have been clear about the fact that we are seeking certain information, and we have framed the survey to gather only that information. This is efficient and appropriate.
The options you suggest would introduce massive bias, since the "No" and "Don't know" answers could come from people who have never had homeopathic treatment, and as a result there would be no basis for a useful statistical relationship between the "Yes" option and the others. Indeed, any attempt to create one would inevitably be biased, and so gathering this additional information would be a waste of time.
Insight and self-appraisal
Our complaint is that homeopaths appear to lack any insight into what they are doing. There is almost no critical self-appraisal of their own work. (The Quackometer)
The practice of homeopathy requires constant and thorough critical self-appraisal of one’s work, and, as has been pointed out in What are randomised control trials?, the choice of remedy involves a careful assessment of the reaction to the previous one. As for insight into what we are doing, this is growing all the time. For example analyses are being developed:
• Of the relationship of different chemical elements in their action on the human body (see Scholten Books & Links: Homeopathy - Remedies);
• Of the actions of different classes of substance (whether from mineral, vegetable or animal origins) (see Sankaran Books & Links: Homeopathy - Theory);
• Of emotional factors and how they relate to illness (see Sankaran Books & Links: Homeopathy - Theory);
• Of treatment for autism, Asperger syndrome and ADHD (see Reichenberg-Ullman Books & Links: Homeopathy - Practice);
• Of different methods of approach and their appropriatenes for particular cases (see Watson Books & Links: Homeopathy - Practice);
• Of the process of consultation (see Kaplan Books & Links: Homeopathy - Practice).
Homeopathy as a positive experience
It is the blind refusal to accept anything other than that homeopathy can be a positive experience. (The Quackometer)
Reactions to potentised remedies vary and they may not be entirely positive experiences, or indeed pleasant ones. This is explained in Why It Works – 1 (see Reactions and Provings).
http://www.hmc21.org/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/2555?opendocument&part=7#opponents
I didn't refresh before posting and missed your post.
