Debate: Homeopathy is Pseudoscience

This is the debate thread between Myself and Dr. Nancy Malik, I am unsure wether Syzygys still wishes to be involved in this debate.

If you are a non-debater and wish to discuss the debate topic or the progress of the debate, you are welcome to use the Discussion Thread.

The format and participants in the debate were agreed in the Proposal thread

This debate will be conducted acording to standed rules with 2 variations.
1) the maximum length of time between posts is 7 days
2) All posts must be surported by published randomised controled trials or cocochrane grade reviews

If anyone else wishes to be involved you have till tomorow to submit your name in the proposal thread

This begins round 1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would like to start this debate by thanking my opponent for this opportunity to clear the myth that there is any scientific evidence supporting Homeopathy and its correct placement in sciforums.

i would also like to point out that im not an oponant of complementry alternitive med (CAM's). Some have been shown to be effective like aupuncher in certain situations and others have deeply cultural roots (like the traditional med of the australian aborigionals). The main thing about these practices is firstly that practioners are honest about the scientific efficasy and secondly that the practioner doesnt discorage scientific med.

Now, I will start by explaining what Cochrane is because it will form the majority of my debate. The cochrane library was created as a database of high quality meta research to allow both health professionals and the general public across all countries to have access to the latest information on various treatments so that they can chose the one with the best evidence of its efficacy.

in there own words:

In general this organisation requires double blind randomised controlled trials unless this is not possible. Double blind means that neither the doctor, nor the patient knows whether they are receiving the treatment to be tested or the placebo. now obviously this isn't always possible for instance in surgical procedures where the surgeon needs to know what they are doing

Now onto homoeopathy,

acording to wikipedia homoeopathy is defined as:

Now if we look at this theory im sure everyone can see the logical hole in the third sentance, that is how can something be harmless (its only water after all) and yet at the same time it is still effective (as water isnt). This logical inconsistancy cant be concidered to be proof should make people suspicious to start with.

on to the evidence

a search on cochrane shows 8 Cochrane reviews on various disorders. I wont be posting the whole articals here but for anyone who's country doesnt provide access i can provide more detailes on each of them if asked through the disscussion thread.

In this post i will start with a trial on ADD and ADHD

At this point i will yeild the floor to my oponants

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

scientific research in homeopathy

Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G (1991). Clinical trials of homeopathy British Medical Journal, 302:316–323. This review of research assessed 105 trials, 81 of them positive [1]. The authors concluded: “Based on this evidence we would be ready to accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible”, “the evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications”.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.