#Homeopathy violates multiple well-established laws of physics and chemistry. It's minimally possible that those laws are incorrect, but for homeopaths to show that they have to produce the same level of evidence for homeopathy as supports those laws of physics. 1/ https://twitter.com/DrPaulND/status/1061293448215519233 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Weakly positive clinical trials with serious flaws in design, execution, and interpretation are not enough to overcome the mountains of evidence from physics and scientists that show that substances diluted to nonexistence can't have a physiological effect. 2/
1 reply 6 retweets 32 likesShow this thread -
The way to look at
#homeopathy is this: What's more likely, that a few weakly positive clinical trials whose results can be explained by bias and/or random chance show that multiple laws of physics are not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong, or that homeopathy is quackery? 3/35 replies 18 retweets 57 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @mdegeorge42 @DavidBloomberg
Clearly you don't understand science. I'm not arguing against scientific evidence. Quite the contrary! I'm merely pointing out how scientific evidence should be compared to existing evidence when seeking to overthrow a longstanding scientific paradigm.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
If you're going to challenge well-established science, you need overwhelming evidence that (1) the science is incorrect or incomplete AND (2) what you want to add to it or replace it with makes that science more correct and/or complete. #Homeopathy fails miserably on both counts.
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.