@GidMK @KlaVeld @rsbrown550 U r WRONG. That review acknowledges that 4 of the 5 largest reviews have been positive
-
-
Replying to @HomeopathicDana
@HomeopathicDana@KlaVeld@rsbrown550 The NHMRC review was of 50 systematic reviews, finding none to be positive for homeopathy.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
@GidMK@KlaVeld@rsbrown550 The Australian review was not even peer reviewed. It is RUBBISH. If u bring it up again, I'll be done w/ u1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @HomeopathicDana
@HomeopathicDana@KlaVeld@rsbrown550 Why do you think it was rubbish?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
@GidMK@KlaVeld@rsbrown550 Did you see how they defined "efficacy"? I have not met a skeptic who knew this answer2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HomeopathicDana
@HomeopathicDana@KlaVeld@rsbrown550 Each systematic review was different, but generally as "better than placebo" https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cam02i_homeopathyoverviewreport140408.pdf …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
@HomeopathicDana@KlaVeld@rsbrown550 Do you think that is not a good test of efficacy?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
@GidMK@KlaVeld@rsbrown550 I'm not clear on what you're saying1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HomeopathicDana
@HomeopathicDana@KlaVeld@rsbrown550 The NHMRC review used as their test of efficacy whether a prepartation was better than placebo.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
@GidMK@KlaVeld@rsbrown550 WRONG. U obviously didnt read the Australian report! U r very sloppy in yr analysis...but u have an axe to grind1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
@HomeopathicDana @KlaVeld @rsbrown550 Extract from the review: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cam02i_homeopathyoverviewreport140408.pdf …pic.twitter.com/b3dWIdnBVl
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.