Well I can't deny that Roy's work is interesting and well presented using the accepted scientific terms. I also believe that he is both honest in declaring his confict of interests (which seem minimal.
)
The studies presented however have the usual flaws these studies always have.
The data presented shows effects of alcosols at different succsion processes without a comparible control. How are we to rule out contamination? Especially as this paper has no corresponding repeat trial by another source ( a prerequisite to make one of the large meta-analysis reports).
And although this is an attempt to show the possibiliy of presence of effect beyond avogadro's constant, it still doesn't address all the other missing methods of the fundamental laws of homeopathy.
It doesn't determine the signal is stronger the more succsions (in fact even Luc Montagnier's reports of lauded by homeopathy shows the opposite)
It doesn't suggest any type of signal delivery system.
It doesn't address the supposed "like cures like" theory.
But none of that would matter if we just and a single repeatable high-quality trial which could show the medical benefits. That would be all encompassing.
All these problems the skeptics highlight with homeopathy are areas where it contradicts what we know about science. Of course that doesn't make it wrong, but it make the claim for efficacy a bold one. And a bold claim requires robust evidence, not sporadic low-quality massively out-weighed trails. Especially if we are to trust our health to it.
Comment Reply
Well I can't deny that Roy's work is interesting and well presented using the accepted scientific terms. I also believe that he is both honest in declaring his confict of interests (which seem minimal.
)
The studies presented however have the usual flaws these studies always have.
The data presented shows effects of alcosols at different succsion processes without a comparible control. How are we to rule out contamination? Especially as this paper has no corresponding repeat trial by another source ( a prerequisite to make one of the large meta-analysis reports).
And although this is an attempt to show the possibiliy of presence of effect beyond avogadro's constant, it still doesn't address all the other missing methods of the fundamental laws of homeopathy.
It doesn't determine the signal is stronger the more succsions (in fact even Luc Montagnier's reports of lauded by homeopathy shows the opposite)
It doesn't suggest any type of signal delivery system.
It doesn't address the supposed "like cures like" theory.
But none of that would matter if we just and a single repeatable high-quality trial which could show the medical benefits. That would be all encompassing.
All these problems the skeptics highlight with homeopathy are areas where it contradicts what we know about science. Of course that doesn't make it wrong, but it make the claim for efficacy a bold one. And a bold claim requires robust evidence, not sporadic low-quality massively out-weighed trails. Especially if we are to trust our health to it.
February 13, 2012 - 4:53amThis Comment
Reply