The previous study was to show that homeopathics have observable effects on living tissues without having to rate symptoms. Here is one on humans.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30836407
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
As
@brownbagpanty observed, not randomized, researchers not blinded, patient selection “based on preference” no reporting of cohort matching, published in Homeopathy Journal by Faculty of Homeopathy and even they say RCT needed.#thisdoesn’tcounteither#stoprecommendingwater1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @auscandoc @brownbagpanty and
Yet even with these limits, still better than the absolute trash skeptics offer when discussing homeopathy
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DrPaulND @brownbagpanty and
On the subject of trash: "homeopathy journal has gotten itself booted from the list of respectable scientific titles thanks to... fishy citations. NHMRC 1 Homeopathy zero.
#showmesciencenotadvertisinghttps://www.statnews.com/2016/06/17/homeopathy-journal-thomson-reuters/ …1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @auscandoc @brownbagpanty and
Perhaps we might stick to studies that are not under investigation by thier own governments for academic fraud, shall we? NHMRC is absolute Trash on this subject, and if you are aware of it's methods and still quote it, you have no business opining on the sciences.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @DrPaulND @auscandoc and
What an odd statement. What specifics of the NHMRC report do you think are "trash"? (Yes, before you ask, I've read it)
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @auscandoc and
In short, the poor choice of reviewers, the failure to differentiate methodologies, the additive method for studies, and the extremely suspicious 150 limit, as well as the completion of the report twice.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DrPaulND @auscandoc and
A poor choice of reviewer is not a methodological criticism. Different methodologies assumes that there are inherent differences between homeopathic treatments, in defiance of Hahnemann's principles. If 150 systematic reviews disagree with you, you're probably wrong
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @auscandoc and
Having biased reviewers, and not including an actual homeopath to work on thodologies of studies is indeed a terrible flaw, but not fatal. The other methods however? Yeah, those are fatal. The report s trash
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
It's not a flaw in any sense. You don't need an expert in homeopathy to read and evaluate medical systematic reviews, you need an expert in systematic reviews and, ideally, medicine. And as I've point out above, your other criticisms are equally invalid
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @auscandoc and
Reallly. So the failure of the NHMRC to differentiate between study methods, such as Individualized placebo controlled, non individuallized placebo controlled, so that data that reflect homeopathic practice is confounded with data that do not is acceptable to you?
9 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
outright fraud is also very common in both medical & science research. http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/fake-science-08-06-2017 …
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.