This is a common straw man attack, that randomized controlled trials are the only valid form of scientific evidence. Oddly enough, that is EXACTLY what proponents of science-based medicine argue against, just not in the way our friend here thinks. I'll briefly explain. 1/https://twitter.com/AMC_Signpost/status/1255840648898347008 …
-
-
In the case of alternative medicine, however, particularly the highly implausible modalities (e.g., reiki, homeopathy), we can look at basic science and assess the likelihood that such therapies can work. That's called the pretest probability. 5/
Show this thread -
For a modality like homeopathy to work, large swaths of well-established science in physics, chemistry, biochemistry, and physiology would have to be not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong. (Note that I leave the tiny possibility open that it could work.) 6/
Show this thread -
Because that's true, we can conclude, using basic science considerations alone, that homeopathy is so incredibly implausible that its pretest probability is, for all practical intents and purposes, indistinguishable from zero. 7/
Show this thread -
Another way to look at it: Basic science considerations alone tell us that homeopathy being effective to treat anything is so improbable as to be functionally indistinguishable from impossible. 8/
Show this thread -
So, it's true. RCTs aren't the *only* valid method of scientific investigation of the efficacy of a treatment. They do, however, remain the gold standard for investigating a treatment with scientific plausibility based on preclinical scientific investigations. 9/9
Show this thread
End of conversation
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.