Quote:
Originally Posted by Mika
Well the very first link i pulled when googling homeopathic clinical studies, in a medical journal, observed that out of something like 84 studies, indications were “apparent bias” and undeterminable methodolgy made it difficult or inclusive to ascertain the quality of the findings - and it is refering both to the Alopathic studies, as well as the Homeopathic practioners ones. But it concludeds despite the biases, etc, it seems the majority of the studies demonstrate (or indicate) a “positive” resultant of Homeopathic useage.
|
I have
this study, (
The Lancet being, in the BBC's words, "one of the world's most prestigious medical journals") which says, and I quote:
When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.
Quote:
|
side note random comment that vilolates once again debating do's and dont's, It's interesting that by what is considered necessary for scientific verification, is absolutely no room for Faith, Prayer, or anything Spiritual, so that 'god' will fail.
|
There has been no/little suggestion that any of those are actually effective beyond what the body does naturally. That's why they are excluded, not because scientists have some bias against god.
Quote:
|
...But the same criteria can allow Sugar companies to publish ads based on their studies, that sugar is good for you, doesn't contribute to tooth decay, obesity or diabetes, because 'technically' its been proven 'true' but really thats the point any research can be skewed.
|
Unfortunately, misleading language and pedantic wording are not banned. However, lying is, so you might want to talk to whoever manages advertising standards in your area.
Quote:
|
I'VE never seen an 'atom' and probably never will, but i'm supposed to take the word of it taught to me in school as 'truth' because others have their evidence, 'not to mention big scary bomb'
|
Feel free to come up with your own theory of fundamental objects, but keep in mind you have to explain images
like this. (
Context)
Quote:
|
..yet homeopathy who distills medicine down to the atomic level, is considered debunked, and again i'm just suppossed to take someone elses word as 'truth'?
|
Well, according to the physics that brought you nanotechnology, and the chemistry that brought you artificial genetic engineering, distilling it to that level reduces its effectiveness. You've either got to "take their word for it" (i.e. believe evidence corroborated by basically any chemistry experiment) or show that the foundation of all modern technology is wrong.