To help follow discussions, the most recent ten comments on blog posts are shown below with the latest comments first.
Older/newer comments can be viewed by clicking on the links at the bottom.
Clicking on the post title will take you to that blog post page and clicking on the comment author and date will take you straight to that comment.
by Declan MacManus - Wednesday 21 March 2018 21:31
It's hysterical watching defenders of this pseudoscientific nonsense try to justify its efficacy. This is absurd, LMAO!
by Udo Endruscheit - Wednesday 21 March 2018 11:32
That's right. I have indeed seen it from the final conclusions on the evidence situation.
by Edzard - Wednesday 21 March 2018 11:01
the Mathie papers addressed a slightly different research question, I think.
by Udo Endruscheit - Wednesday 21 March 2018 10:54
Publish something in your own filter bubble and if this remains uncontradicted, you are right! This is proof according to the Frass method. Thanks for the detailed clarification and for working through Frass' objections. By the way, Shang et al. should no longer be a current issue, after Mathie 2014 and 2017 and the NHMRC 2015.
by Les Rose - Wednesday 21 March 2018 10:40
Methinks he doth protest too much. If there were any effect of homeopathy, it would not be necessary to resort to such data-dredging.
by Dr. Dr. Jeroen Staring - Wednesday 21 March 2018 10:11
by Lenny - Wednesday 21 March 2018 15:54
As ever it's fun to watch the soldiers marching by with Private Ullman knowing he's the only one marching in time.
by Alan Henness - Wednesday 21 March 2018 15:21
Norbert Aust saidYou claim that gold under certain conditions is magnetic, then show us your evidence.I'm dying to find out from Dana whether gold is dia, para, ferro, anti-ferro, ferri, superpara, etc and what that has to do with homeopathy.
by Edzard - Wednesday 21 March 2018 15:17
This post is about the fact that there is no rigorous evidence for homeopathy that has stood the test of independent replication. By distracting from this message and diverting the discussion to other issues, you tacitly agree with it - am I correct Dana?
by Edzard - Wednesday 21 March 2018 15:05
... and I have just googled that the earth is flat!
by Norbert Aust - Wednesday 21 March 2018 14:45
Dana, if you knew a thing about science you would know that it is the claimant that has to prove his cleim. You claim that gold under certain conditions is magnetic, then show us your evidence. Otherwise you would have to believe me that a sizable piece of old Cheddar cheese is currently in an orbit around Jupiter - unless you prove me wrong you got to believe it.
by Alan Henness - Wednesday 21 March 2018 14:34
Dana Ullman said: I corrected that by saying that such patents have virtually no practical usage because any other company can create a very minor change in a formula (from 12X or 13X or 11X) of one ingredent.Ah. You must have missed - or not understood - my previous comment on this. Please let me know if you need it put in simpler terms for you. And yet, I’ve proven so many mis-statements here to be dead-wrong or just stupid, and yet, people here cling to their ignorance and stupidity. How quaint.ROFL!
by Frank Odds - Wednesday 21 March 2018 15:37
"guess what, it brought us thru every flu season" There's a tiny flaw in your reasoning. Can you spot it? Might it not just be normal health? Or drinking [name of your favourite beverages]? Or praying regularly to one of many gods? Or eating four kinds of fruit every day? Believe it or not, people don't all suffer from 'flu every winter!!
by Edzard - Wednesday 21 March 2018 13:48
I have never taken anything against the flue. guess what, it brought me thru every flu season.
by Carina F - Wednesday 21 March 2018 13:29
Influenzinum 9c, a homeopathic flu “vaccine”! Started about 10 years ago, giving these little vials to my little children, my husband and myself, guess what, it brought us thru every flu season, with school and workplaces, where half the kids and adults where down with nasty flulike symptoms! Kids “hated” it, because they wanted to spent some time out of school! Anybody who wants to convince me that it does NOT work, should go and get the “healthy” flu shot and enjoy some of the side effects! Would and will do it every year in the future, believing or not it is up to the people, but my family of seven is happy with it! And healthy 😂😀😂
by Roger Buckeed - Wednesday 21 March 2018 03:44
Thanks, I really enjoyed this article. Clinicians can certainly form strong opinions about their abilities based on their success in clinic.
by Edzard - Tuesday 20 March 2018 13:11
finally someone in France has the courage to speak out (https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Doctors-condemn-alternative-medicines): A total 124 doctors sign an open letter criticising alternative medicines such as homeopathy as having 'no scientific basis' More than 100 doctors and health professionals have written an open letter protesting against the use of alternative medicines such as homeopathy. The letter, published in Le Figaro, with 124 signatories says such 'esoteric disciplines' are 'fed by charlatans' and 'have no scientific basis' but are 'based on beliefs promising miraculous healing'. "We wish to dissociate ourselves completely from practices that are neither scientific nor ethical, but rather irrational and dangerous," the letter reads. They said that alternative medicines promote a 'mistrust' of conventional treatment and can 'delay diagnosis'. The writers demand that the Conseil de l'ordre des médecins et[des] pouvoirs publics to stop recognising alternative treatments as medical, stop teaching them in medical training, and call for a halt to covering the costs of such treatments.
by Edzard - Tuesday 20 March 2018 12:24
not as funny as untrue!
by Natalia - Tuesday 20 March 2018 12:20
You can read the second article (The Adaptability of Homeoprophylaxis in Endemic, Epidemic and Stable Background Conditions) here: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1055/s-0029-1186252 Conclusion is funny as hell
by Edzard - Monday 19 March 2018 18:42
Allow me to change this slightly: There are two categories of people: 1) who believe in homeopathy; 2) who understand scientific evidence.
by doctor - Monday 19 March 2018 18:20
There are two categories of people: 1) who believe in homeopathy; 2) who have never tried it.
by Edzard - Tuesday 20 March 2018 12:21
A NEW REVIEW! https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-ethics-of-cam-more-harm-than-good/
by Norbert Aust - Tuesday 20 March 2018 08:48
Well, this "study" by Rostock et al. is one thing to illustrate the nature of homeopathy research. Please observe: they could not find enough matches to provide meaningful results. So they they made do with comparing the coherts in total. And here is the thing: Homeopathy group: - average 56 years of age - expensive private clinic high in the Alps with a nice view on Lago Maggiore - I guess decent food goes with it - 10 months after first diagnosis - 20 % undercoing chemotherapy Placebo group: - average 60 years of age - ordinary local hospital (many participants were recruited in the Orthenau-Klinik at Offenburg) - I guess ordinary hospital food - 3 months after first diagnosis - 65 % undergoing chemotherapy Do you really need a study to conclude that quality of life (the main outcome) is higher with the homeopathy-group?
by Udo Endruscheit - Monday 19 March 2018 22:42
In Germany, Dr. Jens Behnke of the Carstens Foundation for Nature and Medicine (one of the great lobbyists of homeopathy) announced that he had filed an official programme complaint against the broadcaster MDR. He reproaches the broadcaster for depriving its viewers of a scientifically sound basis for cancer treatment with homeopathy. He believes that the station had not fulfilled its duty of balanced reporting. Perhaps he would rather not wish the station to make a well-founded contribution to his "scientific foundations".
by James - Monday 19 March 2018 22:06
I have decided that you have too little understanding of medicine, science, English or even basic logic and common sense to discuss further with you. I don't see any ad hominem in that. I cannot understand what on earth was your argument anyway, either.
by Sandra - Monday 19 March 2018 17:43
@Ernst Easy out? Too embarrassing for you? Cowardice does not become you. "I have decided that you have too little understanding of medicine, science, English or even basic logic and common sense to discuss further with you." “Personal or ad hominem attacks are fallacious arguments directly directed at a named individual which serve as substitutes for that individual’s arguments. In football terminology, they play the player instead of the ball.” Professor Ernst blog post of 12/22/2012
by Lenny - Monday 19 March 2018 17:01
You dare question the medical qualifications of a former transcriptionist? Sandra isn’t worth wasting time on. Leave her to her haples wibbling.
by Edzard - Monday 19 March 2018 14:52
I have decided that you have too little understanding of medicine, science, English or even basic logic and common sense to discuss further with you.
by Edzard - Monday 19 March 2018 20:14
by MITCHELL DAVIS - Monday 19 March 2018 19:24
My experiences as a chiropractic student over 20 years ago mirror these findings. There was a strong emphasis on both science and philosophy, despite the fact that the science often contradicted the philosophy. So there were many clever instructors and students who found ways to merge them. It is like religious scientists trying to merge the ideas of creationism with evolution and the Big Bang.
Newer comments → ← Older comments