Why Homeopathy is getting more and more popular?

In post 284 I thought it was a mistake until I looked up the article Malik referenced. Once again the journal was not given. Very suspicious.

From Malik's posting:

That set off bells and whistles. While looking for the source of this obvious bad study and to verify it was as bad as Malik posted I ran into this:

http://skepfeeds.wordpress.com/tag/scientific-method/

This person has already done a good job of verifying how bad the study was. In fact, the participants knew the purpose of the study and knew what they received!

At the given URL, the reader of the study says:

So by my count Malik has only posted 1 study suggesting the value of homeopathy. Can the 5% false positive level be broken? Doubtful.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This may be the dumbest statement to date. To accept speculation may be your business Malik, but it is not science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I said ancedotal evidence came last. The first is the positive research in favour of homeopathy which says about the efficacy of omeopathy

Repo Man was the first person who tied homeopathy to astrology, not me. Check out his post. Don't pass your baggage on to my shoulders.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Few decades back it was emperical science all over the medical establishment, till the time big pharma companies come over, took over the agenda of scientific community and replace emperical science by double blind studies. So now everything would be seen from the lens of double blind. So anything which does not pass through the lens is unscinetific. So all the knowledge and wisdom of our forefathers is rubbish from the view point of conventional medicine. It's like George Bush, "You are either with us or against us"

Still homeopathy passes double blind test as is shown in many researches published in international journals.

P.S. The double blind placebo trial was only invented in the 60's and medicine has been used way before then.

 

Judge yourself how credible the research in conventional medicine

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/266/142/ //the bad research by Conventional medicine (CM)
http://www.naturalnews.com/022505.html // bogus research by CM
http://www.naturalnews.com/023074.html //the bad research by conventional pharma companies
http://www.naturalnews.com/025852.html //list of 21 fabricated studies
http://www.naturalnews.com/012119.html //truth behind medical journal
http://www.naturalnews.com/001890.html //JAMA lacks credibility

 

I am not referring to anecdotal evidence. I am referring to the fact that you claimed the broad spread use of homeopathy was evidence for the efficacy of the concept. (At least you appear to be admitting you made such a claim.) It is irrelevant whether this is the first, or the last in your arguments for homeopathy, the point is that it is an invalid line of argument.

Please answer this simple question with a 'YES' or a 'NO'.

Do you accept that the number of people using homeopathy is not necessarily any evidence for the efficacy of the process?

You really don't get this do you? Listen, if you have some form of dyslexia, attenion deficit disorder, or other medical condition that hampers your comprehension let me know by pm. I shall back right off. Otherwise I shall just have to assume you are intellectually challenged.

Point 1: Repo man was not the first to mention astrology in this thread. I did so in post 187. You had posted this
Posted by Dr. Nancy Malik
thirty million people in Europe use homeopathic medicine
”
Response by Ophiolite
65 million people in Europe consult their horoscopes. Does this mean astrology is valid?

Point 2: Repo Man echoed this remark in post 252 (?).

Point 3: In both posts, mine and repo man's, it is clear to anyone who is paying attention that we are using an analogy. We are saying claiming validity for homeopathy because of the number of people who use it is analogous to claiming validity for astrology because of the number of people who use it. An analogy, Dr. Malik, identified as such by the use of a simile.

Point 4: Since the analogy is valid it is correct to say that the underlying reality is valid. You are using a logical progression that, in general form, reads.

If A is true then B is also true.

In specific forms it reads
If many people use homeopathy then homeopathy must be valid.
If many people use astrology then astrology must be valid.

Since you are using this logical argument (If A is true then B is also true.) for homeopathy it is implicitly tied to the same argument for astrology.

Point 5: That connection, between homeopathy and astrology, was made implicitly by you through the choice you made of which logical argument to employ.

Point 6: All I and Repo Man did was to point out the argument you were using and the logical consequence of that argument.

Point 7: This is not my baggage. This is your baggage. You have used a fatally flawed argument and you are too stubborn, or too foolish to admit it.

 

So here we go again with homeopathy unable to defend itself and going on the offensive. After all the effort Malik came up with 1 article that might prop up the claims of homeopathy. The rest of the postings were seen to be bad efforts at scamming up.

I scanned over the link called "//list of 21 fabricated studies" and went to a page titled "A Listing of the Twenty-One Fabricated Studies by Dr. Scott Reuben"

Here are 2 quotes from this posting:

The conclusions drawn by this paper are nitwit conclusions. They do not follow. These are demagogic claims made by someone who has an agenda.

Basically the author deduces that if 1 study may have included falsified data then all studies ever published are all tainted.

All of this bad and obviously ridiculous writing is based on a single incident of falsified data by a doctor Reuben. What we learn from looking into the Reuben issue is that his own hospital caught him. He was caught through an audit that uncovered he had not applied for permission to do some of the studies.

Another case of faked data is Andrew Wakefield who published in Lancet data that connected the MMR vaccine to autism. Wakefield was a fraud and was caught.

About PLoS:

No group is immune from purposeful lies. People are involved and not everyone is honest. On the other hand most people are honest. The actions of individuals is not necessarily the actions of the group.

 

The efficacy of homeopathy is not due to hundreds of millions of people using homeopathy worldwide. It is due to research which has shown that homeopathy works. Do you mean to say hundreds of millions of people using homeopathy for their ills are fools? What about those who uses conventional medicine inspite of knowing of side efects? Are they also fools?

You can make any false claim but the truth is I have not talk anything about astrology. It is you and repoman who is weaving homeopathy to astrolgy for analogy purpose or whatsoever. Tell me where I have equated homeopathy to astrolgy. You are trying to fool public about the issue.

See again. If many people use homeopathy then homeopathy must be valid.
If many people use astrology then astrology must be valid.

You have used the words above (in italics) again relating homeopathy to astrology for analogy purpose or whatsoever. Not I

 

studies published in journals: results superior than placebo (12th)

the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment was proved is diabetic retinitis.
(Zicari, et al., "Valutazione dell'azione Angioprotettiva di Preparati di Arnica nel Trattamento della Retinpatia Diabetica," Bolletino de Oculistica, 1992, 5:841-848).

Retinitis is a complication of diabetes in which there is retina inflammation, causing vision problems, edema, and secretion from the eye and sometimes bleeding inside the retina.

In the double–blind study of 60 patients Arnica 5CH was given. The results showed that 47% of patients treated with Arnica 5CH showed an improvement in the central blood flow of the eye, while only 1% of the placebo-treated patients showed this improvement.

Additionally 52% of patients who received the medicine showed improvement in the blood flow in other parts of the eye as well, while only 1% of the placebo group showed a similar improvement.

 

Haaaaaaaaa. Trying to justify the notorious ways of conventional medicine.
WHo is having an agenda? You can not fool people for long

Many conventional physicians have sold their scholarly souls to commerce. Nonetheless, the takeover by the corporate is not complete, and many conventional physicians still toil honestly, albeit for less money.

 

This paper is so obscure that I cannot find the publisher or article. It seems that there exists only a reference to this article posted in a few places by people copy and pasting the same article.

Sorry Malik. You still have only posted 1 study.

 

So far you have committed fraud a number of times in posting the articles you did. Haaaaa. By the logic of the idiotic linkyou post you are a fraud and all homeopaths are frauds.

Our demands here are not as ridiculous as the site you linked to. All we want to see is evidence that homeopathy works. So far you have managed to post bad studies that were not randomized, and studies that were not statistically significant, which you misrepresented, studies in which you misrepresented the results, etc.

So far you have racked up 1 study. Well done seeing you claim there is ample research showing the efficacy of homeopathy. Now get out there and do some research and find the evidence.

 

Here is a homeopathic study at the essence of what Ophiolite and others have been asking:

Homeopathic Treatment for Chronic Disease: A 6-Year, University-Hospital Outpatient Observational Study
David S. Spence, Elizabeth A. Thompson, S.J. Barron
The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. October 2005, Vol. 11, No. 5: 793-798

From Ben Goldacre

From Matthias Egger of the U of Berne:

More from Goldacre:

 

Dr. Malik,
it is quite clear that you lack the education or the intellect to argue in defense of homeopathy. You have repeatedly failed to understand the consequences of a simple logical chain. Even within a single paragraph there are gross contradictions. Here is an example.

You write:
"The efficacy of homeopathy is not due to hundreds of millions of people using homeopathy worldwide."

That is a clear statement, although you appear to mean its efficacy is not proved by the hundreds of millions who use it.

But you go on to say "Do you mean to say hundreds of millions of people using homeopathy for their ills are fools? "
A clear statement that clearly implies that the hundreds of millions who use it are proof of the efficacy of homeopathy.

There is no point in arguing with someone who cannot understand English and ha no grasp of logical fallacies, or of how to construct an effective argument.

Good luck with your delusions. If you really do have a doctorate may I recommend you try and get your tuition fees refunded.

 

the answer is a simple one. dont use conventional medicine.....er...of course that wont happen if you really got sick but you should give it an honest try.

 

The study I referred to in post 313 was horribly done and yet has been touted in many places since the study was large. Large amounts of data from a bad study simply do not make the study or conclusions any better. Large numbers of believers means nothing in science; it's the evidence that counts.

 

Study: Homeopathy better than conventional medicine

Homeopathy in acute malaria

A pilot study in Ghana showing homoeopathic treatment equal to and slightly more effective than chloroquine in the treatment of acute malaria
(Br Homoeopath J 1996 Apr;85(2):66-70).

 

False

Most of them were randomised placebo controlled studies and statistically significant

 

Most of them? I reported where the researchers said NOT statistically significant.

Count: 1

Let's see if this next claim might bump the count.

 

Joined this thread late, but isn't Homeopathy one of the reserves of the "Worried Well"?
eg The UK's Prince Charles, whose nutrition is perfect and always has been, has a host of Harley Street doctors to detect any real illness, and wants some alternative science to give him respite from minor illnesses that other people might not even notice.