Scott,
...They then do the test, the test fails to show any results, and almost uniformly they blame the test.?!?!? That just doesn't cut it. Many/most homeopaths today aren't interested in double blind studies. They won't submit their work to them. When a double blind study is designed to catch cheaters, and people who make huge claims aren't interested in completing a little study.... well, it is way more than a bit fishy.
There are things that need to be clarified about Homeopathy. There are different types of Homeopathy, and I do not support several of these types.
The first post of an old topic of mine on the BBCi science Board follows:
Re. the Homeopathy question, some progress has been made in the understanding of the problem. This discussion addresses the "Theory" part:
1). That many people, with only a superficial interest and knowledge of the subject, will feel the urge to vocalise their opinion in the form of very predictable comments. It appears largely to be an emotional reaction (as it could not possibly be based on a detailed knowledge of the subject matter), and a reaction which Homeopaths have had to put up with for a very long time.
2). That many people are simply unaware of the fact that so-called "Scientific testing of Homeopathy" is rarely addressing true Homeopathy at all, but the Scientists' application/interpretation of Homeopathy (always revealed by close scrutiny of the study).
3). Muddying the Waters : There is a bizarre yet well established association between a branch of Medicine (immunisation/allergies/vaccination) and Homeopathy, persisting through its promotion by large pharmaceutical companies, which is clearly flawed from Homeopathy's point of view, and has muddied the waters of the Homeopathy debate considerably. This "association" seems to be based on a vague resemblance between (a) the small quantity of substances injected to stimulate the patient's immune system, and (b) the apparently small quantities of substances believed to be effective in Homeopathy. They are not related. For instance, when a "mixed pollen extract" is diluted and succussed before being administered to a patient with the intention of giving immunity, any claim that this procedure is connected with Homeopathy is ridiculous. Therefore, any Scientific research in this particular area of "Immunity/Homeopathy(?)", using the associated pharmaceuticals from the Pasteur Institute, for example, and then claiming to be testing the validity of Homeopathy, is completely without foundation. This category includes all the work in this area submitted by Dr David Reilly, a Medical Doctor who crossed over "to the other side", and who, it appears, has been the chief spokesman for Homeopathy as far as the Scientific community is concerned, for many years. He does not seem to see the very significant flaw in this work.
4). That situations 2). and 3). above have arisen, emphasizes the fact that Medical Science and Homeopathy are completely separate entities without any significant communication lines between them, no interdependencies, nor indeed any significant mutual understanding. Why should they, and how could they ever get together?
5). That it is very much in the interest of millions of patients, and therefore very important, that Homeopathy is fully recognized for what it has to offer, and utilized by the Medical Sciences particularly in the treatment of the so-called "incurable" chronic diseases which are prominent today.
6). That few realise the importance of a resolution of the Scientific mechanism of Homeopathy.
7). That the Classical Homeopathy practiced by Hahnemann was effective against virtually all disease conditions. My experience does not extend to Modern Homeopathy, so no comment can be made, at this stage.
Tim
