The following list is the complete collection of scientifically controlled, double-blind studies which have conclusively demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy.
Promoting Science and Critical Thinking
The following list is the complete collection of scientifically controlled, double-blind studies which have conclusively demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy.
hahahhahahahah
The sentence:
“List of scientifically controlled double blind studies which have conclusively demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy”
Is a trouble, i.e., the “skeptiks” says “have conclusively…” is a funny sentence. In science the conclusively of knowledge does not true, science is change. Please, if a one double blind study exists, needs a replication, again, and again,….
Matt, I think you need to understand homeopathy. You need to know what constitutes homeopathy and what is not.
http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/homeopathy-explained/
Reddit: “These so-called “positive” studies used treatments that I would not classify as homeopathic. For example, in one cancer side effect trial, they used calendula oil to treat dermatitis. In another study, they examined nasal lavage with saline solution – this is a procedure, not the result of a opposite same-effect substance heavily diluted in water ingested as a drug.”
“used treatments that I would not classify as homeopathic”
Laugh! Please, low potencies is a homeopathy.
“this is a procedure, not the result of a opposite same-effect substance”
Please, the “law of simila” is a principle.
@J
Cochrane Review: Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments (2010) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004845.pub2/full
List of Journals and URL Links to 245 studies in them including 132 FULL TEXT papers are available as compendium at http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/scientific-research-in-homeopathy . The compendium is prepared by mining 6 online databases: PubMed Central (National Library of medicine, USA), MedWorm, British library Direct (type homeopathy in search box), Scirus, Google Scholar and HomBRex
Nancy, please, stop. Why not perform your own experiments. Take a heavily diluted (say 30c) strong poison and drink it. If you come back and post here, you’ve proven yourself wrong. If you don’t….
This reddit comment ought to be linked here. Take a look Nancy: http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/xi2y6/list_of_scientifically_controlled_double_blind/c5mo44q
Don’t mind Nancy, she’s a woo doctor or something. Runs a pro-homeopathy website that claims its “science based”. Sorry Nancy, but it’s not. Using fancy words does not equal science. I will not directly link to her website here, but if you google “245 human studies published in 100 peer-reviewed international medical journals (81 integrative, 9 homeopathy and 10 CAM) including 12 meta-analysis” and it will pop up.
By the end of year 2010, there have been 245 human studies published in 100 peer-reviewed international medical journals (81 integrative, 9 homeopathy and 10 CAM) including 12 meta-analysis, 6 systematic reviews, 1 Cochrane Review and 104 DBRPCT in evidence of homeopathy.
Well, let’s see a list of them then.
Nancy, if you mean homeopathy works by “in evidence of”, that’s a false statement. Cochrane has reviewed evidence for homeopathy for ADHD, asthma, dementia, osteoarthritis, hot flushes, cancer side effects, induction of labor, and bed wetting (see links from http://www.cochrane.org/search/site/homeopathy). None found evidence that homeopathy works. Important to note, “most studies used poor sampling and measurement techniques, few subjects, single sites and no replication”. That’s exactly contrary to your list of big numbers to convince people good research is being done. Particularly damning: “The probability of a positive outcome was significantly lower when randomization and placebo were used than when another method of group assignment or comparison to conventional therapy was used.” These quotes are from scientifically-minded homeopathy boosters (Wayne Jonas et al), not critics (who could say much worse and still be correct). http://www.imbi.uni-freiburg.de/OJS/cca/index.php?journal=cca&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=4361