Comments on: Bad Science: How homeopaths misrepresent the evidence

Comments on: Bad Science: How homeopaths misrepresent the evidence http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/ Discussions on science, skepticism, pseudoscience; trips on the borders of religion and science; brief adventures in hi-fi; this is a Journey through a Burning Mind... Sat, 19 May 2012 17:32:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-15371 Stavros Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:53:03 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/#comment-15371 Paul, thanks for the comment, appreciated. I have been following your blog for quite some time now. It is encouraging to see many smart people and scientists taking on the woo that is homeopathy! Let's see where this is going...
I have been following your blog for quite some time now. It is encouraging to see many smart people and scientists taking on the woo that is homeopathy! Let’s see where this is going…]]> By: Paul Wilson http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-15365 Paul Wilson Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:02:25 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/#comment-15365 This is an excellent summary of the evidence, I'm sorry I hadn't come across it sooner. Keep up the good work. By: sciencebitches http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-12772 sciencebitches Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:36:16 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/#comment-12772 Stavros good post mate. Its encouraging to see that some people are still with the side of logic and critical though. Smith: its not about quantity its about quality. and they have showed that quality-wise they fail miserably. most analyses show that the higher the quality the more negative the results. and yes, most results are easily explained by the placebo effect or other cognitive biases.
Smith: its not about quantity its about quality. and they have showed that quality-wise they fail miserably. most analyses show that the higher the quality the more negative the results.

and yes, most results are easily explained by the placebo effect or other cognitive biases.]]> By: Smith http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-12771 Smith Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:03:56 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/#comment-12771 I absolutely agree with you, the justifications you made towards the article doesn’t actually prove the reality of their practice. It does indeed shows how some homeopaths can be so narrow and delusional, but never the less it’s still amusing to read their defences and time to time see where they heading to. Going back to Myth 5: I was astonished that for the past 24 years there have managed ONLY 180 controlled, and 118 randomized trials. I mean seriously having 8766 day on their hands they only managed to achieve this number the rest possibly went to promote woo-woo!!?? All those wonderful results that came eventually positive are simply Placebo effect, but still real effects and results need it .I was shocked that so called “magicians” who believe in power of water offer help to people with HIV. Let’s be serious what so called homeopaths can offer to those people “drops of water” that miraculously will cure HIV. I already can see a future and marketing promotion “HIV cured my magical remedy so called water” :) And in the end I believe that they have misled the journey from science and went to the opposite direction. The foundation is too weak and I am certain it needs more work on actual results
Going back to Myth 5: I was astonished that for the past 24 years there have managed ONLY 180 controlled, and 118 randomized trials. I mean seriously having 8766 day on their hands they only managed to achieve this number the rest possibly went to promote woo-woo!!??

All those wonderful results that came eventually positive are simply Placebo effect, but still real effects and results need it .I was shocked that so called “magicians” who believe in power of water offer help to people with HIV. Let’s be serious what so called homeopaths can offer to those people “drops of water” that miraculously will cure HIV. I already can see a future and marketing promotion “HIV cured my magical remedy so called water”

And in the end I believe that they have misled the journey from science and went to the opposite direction. The foundation is too weak and I am certain it needs more work on actual results]]> By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-12730 Stavros Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:04:38 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/#comment-12730 Also, Smith, if you want to be notified for responses you can provide your email address -it is not shared or published! Just saying... By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-12729 Stavros Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:02:06 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/#comment-12729 Smith I am really glad you liked the post. NaturalNews is a place where they embrace the naturalistic fallacy: the erroneous idea that everything natural is good and everything unnatural is bad. I have read before the article you quote. It is a collection of fallacies and "making stuff up". The author is an apologetic homeopath that does not provide evidence for anything she says and resorts to magic to justify homeopathy! The only "myth" that cites evidence is myth number 5 which falls nicely into the context of my post here! Other than that here are some of her words: "Homeopathy works by stimulating the body’s own healing mechanisms, through like for like." -making stuff up "Succussion brings out the formative intelligence of the substance and imprints it upon the 60% distilled water + 40% alcohol" -magical thinking and making stuff up "Homeopathic medicines undergo a scientific 'Proving' where a control group of 50+ healthy volunteers ('Provers') are instructed to keep taking a remedy under trial until they develop symptoms which they must record in detail" -science: you are doing it wrong!!! "As anyone who has treated animals and babies with homeopathic medicines will tell you, homeopathy works even better on animals and babies than it does on adults! If proof were needed, this is it. Not placebo." -complete ignorance of the placebo effect; this is also a self-refuting argument (<a href="/2008/03/22/alternative-medicine-for-animals/" rel="nofollow">see here</a>) "Any remedy under a 12c or a 24x potency still contains the original molecules of the substance and this is known as Avogadro's number." -complete ignorance of Avogadro's number; this is also a self-contradicting argument since homeopaths believe that the more diluted the stronger a remedy is! "Millions of people worldwide testify that homeopathy cures their illnesses yet apparently that cannot be construed as 'evidence'." -complete ignorance of human psychology, subjective validation, regression to the mean, etc etc... Seriously, this article is packed with nonsense! It is a tremendous example of how stupid or deluded some homeopaths can be. This might seem harsh, but when you are responsible for peoples' lives and you give them magical water then you must be called what you are!
NaturalNews is a place where they embrace the naturalistic fallacy: the erroneous idea that everything natural is good and everything unnatural is bad.

I have read before the article you quote. It is a collection of fallacies and “making stuff up”. The author is an apologetic homeopath that does not provide evidence for anything she says and resorts to magic to justify homeopathy! The only “myth” that cites evidence is myth number 5 which falls nicely into the context of my post here!

Other than that here are some of her words:

“Homeopathy works by stimulating the body’s own healing mechanisms, through like for like.” -making stuff up

“Succussion brings out the formative intelligence of the substance and imprints it upon the 60% distilled water + 40% alcohol” -magical thinking and making stuff up

“Homeopathic medicines undergo a scientific ‘Proving’ where a control group of 50+ healthy volunteers (’Provers’) are instructed to keep taking a remedy under trial until they develop symptoms which they must record in detail” -science: you are doing it wrong!!!

“As anyone who has treated animals and babies with homeopathic medicines will tell you, homeopathy works even better on animals and babies than it does on adults! If proof were needed, this is it. Not placebo.” -complete ignorance of the placebo effect; this is also a self-refuting argument (see here)

“Any remedy under a 12c or a 24x potency still contains the original molecules of the substance and this is known as Avogadro’s number.” -complete ignorance of Avogadro’s number; this is also a self-contradicting argument since homeopaths believe that the more diluted the stronger a remedy is!

“Millions of people worldwide testify that homeopathy cures their illnesses yet apparently that cannot be construed as ‘evidence’.” -complete ignorance of human psychology, subjective validation, regression to the mean, etc etc…

Seriously, this article is packed with nonsense! It is a tremendous example of how stupid or deluded some homeopaths can be. This might seem harsh, but when you are responsible for peoples’ lives and you give them magical water then you must be called what you are!]]> By: Smith http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-12727 Smith Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:25:58 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/#comment-12727 Great topic Stavros, At least now I have clear perspective on "Homeopathy". The research will continue to strive for better or worse like you have said homoeopaths will never listen to the evidence. They will continue their "dogmatic belief in homeopathy". If you have a chance check NaturalNews.com there are some interesting articles by Louise Mclean, "Dispelling the Myths Surrounding Homeopathy"
At least now I have clear perspective on “Homeopathy”. The research will continue to strive for better or worse like you have said homoeopaths will never listen to the evidence. They will continue their “dogmatic belief in homeopathy”.

If you have a chance check NaturalNews.com there are some interesting articles by Louise Mclean, “Dispelling the Myths Surrounding Homeopathy”]]> By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-12725 Stavros Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:02:15 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/#comment-12725 jdc thanks for the links. I have followed apgaylard's great cover of the issue but I was not aware of Shpalman and Wilson. Orac has also been at his usual not-so-respectfully-insolent on the alleged "debunkings" (laughable really) of Shang's meta-analysis!
Orac has also been at his usual not-so-respectfully-insolent on the alleged “debunkings” (laughable really) of Shang’s meta-analysis!]]> By: jdc http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-12722 jdc Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:40:08 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/11/10/bad-science-how-homeopaths-misrepresent-the-evidence/#comment-12722 Nice work. The Alternative Reality of the homeopath is an interesting topic. Shpalman, AP Gaylard and Paul Wilson have all looked at the misrepresentation of Shang - if you haven't caught these before, there's a bunch of them here: <a href="http://www.badscienceblogs.net/?s=shang" rel="nofollow">BadScienceBlogs</a>
Shpalman, AP Gaylard and Paul Wilson have all looked at the misrepresentation of Shang - if you haven’t caught these before, there’s a bunch of them here: BadScienceBlogs]]>