Apology: "Homeopathy is not witchcraft, it is nonsense on stilts"

[Guest]

What is the point in providing free information to those who either wouldn't understand it or who would wish to merely contest it with 'yes but my cancerous sister in law once had reiki ...' arguments for woowoo?

You can lead a horse to water...

 

The information is there. If folk want to be wilfully ignorant or remain lazily misinformed, then it's frustrating but there's not much to be done.

[Guest]

About time. Ill informed claptrap.

 

That is truly wonderful .

[onewheeldave]

The link I provided some posts ago has some useful information. You helpfully linked to the appropriate page. Here's a snippet:

 

Or in a different format here (from ~1m20s).

 

Here is a model trial for homeopathy. You take, say, 200 people, and divide them at random into two groups of 100. All of the patients visit their homeopath, they all get a homeopathic prescription at the end (because homeopaths love to prescribe pills even more than doctors) for whatever it is that the homeopath wants to prescribe, and all the patients take their prescription to the homeopathic pharmacy. Every patient can be prescribed something completely different, an “individualised” prescription – it doesn’t matter.

 

Now here is the twist: one group gets the real homeopathy pills they were prescribed (whatever they were), and the patients in the other group are given fake sugar pills. Crucially, neither the patients, nor the people who meet them in the trial, know who is getting which treatment.

 

This trial has been done, time and time again, with homeopathy, and when you do a trial like this, you find, overall, that the people getting the placebo sugar pills do just as well as those getting the real, posh, expensive, technical, magical homeopathy pills.

 

 

 

Do you think that's a fair trial?

 

Do you think an intelligent homepathists would consider that to be a fair trial?

 

In the light of what I said earlier

 

 

But there's important aspects of homeopathy that are not purely physical effects from administered chemicals.

 

If a clinical trial measures only physical effects of administered chemicals, then the trial (if well done), will clearly give reliable conclusions about the physical effects of (homeopathic) chemicals.

 

It won't however, say much about homeopathy which has always, unlike conventional medicine, emphasised that the diagnostic procedure and the patient/practioner relationship, is of paramount importance.

 

Homeopathy isn't, and has never been, simply a matter of administering a substance.

 

A useful clinical trial of homeopathy, would have to include the standard diagnostic procedures and patient/practitioner relationship.

 

Can you see why a intelligent homepothist would consider the trial you mention to not be fair?

[Guest]

...Can you see why a intelligent homepothist would consider the trial you mention to not be fair?

Why don't you tell me?

[milquetoast1]

Homöopathie rebuked:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/homopathie_rebuked.php

[milquetoast1]

What happened to the guy that forgot to take his homeopathic remedy?

 

 

He died of an overdose.

 

 

[onewheeldave]

What is the point in providing free information to those who either wouldn't understand it or who would wish to merely contest it with 'yes but my cancerous sister in law once had reiki ...' arguments for woowoo?

 

1. not every potential supporter of homeopathy is either unintelligent or prone to use the "'yes but my cancerous sister in law once had reiki ...' arguments" (for example, I've not used any such 'arguments')

 

2. if some do, then so be it- that's the nature of free speech and open discussion, occasionally invalid arguments would be trundled out (the same is true of the arguments of some rationalists)

 

3. you make it sound as if the provision of the information is some kind of privelige? I'd say, that in an open public online discussion like this one, the provision of evidence to back up claims is not a privelige, but, more of an obligation. Bear in mind that, of all the 'rationalists' posting that "this study was done which showed....... etc", most are not actually scientists- there's no reason whatsoever to assume that they have actually read the study they're referring to, or that the study actually exists, or, that their understanding of what the study showed, bears any resemblance to what it actually did show.

 

In my experience, 'rationalists' are every bit as prone as homeopathy supporters, to misunderstanding and use of invalid arguements.

[onewheeldave]

Why don't you tell me?

 

I will do.

 

But I'd like you to think about why a intelligent homeopathist would consider it to be not fair, especially with reference to

 

But there's important aspects of homeopathy that are not purely physical effects from administered chemicals.

 

If a clinical trial measures only physical effects of administered chemicals, then the trial (if well done), will clearly give reliable conclusions about the physical effects of (homeopathic) chemicals.

 

It won't however, say much about homeopathy which has always, unlike conventional medicine, emphasised that the diagnostic procedure and the patient/practioner relationship, is of paramount importance.

 

Homeopathy isn't, and has never been, simply a matter of administering a substance.

 

Thing I'm trying to get an understanding of, given that your previous posts have come across as pretty intelligently composed, why you may not see why a intelligent homeopathist would have a problem with that study.

 

If you can't see why it could be considered unfair, then that's OK, just say that and I'll tell you why I consider it flawed.

[Guest]

...If you can't see why it could be considered unfair, then that's OK, just say that and I'll tell you why I consider it flawed.

Go on. Indulge me. Let's say I've no idea why you consider it flawed.

[Tony]

that's the nature of free speech

Free speech never cured cancer.