|
wizzardssleeve (August 19, 2008 at 6:23 am)
What a surprise - shameless cherrypicking of quotes. Let's see what they went on to say:"However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition."Linde explicitly went on to point out that their study was *not* evidence of homeopathy working, and that paper was effectively retracted in 1999 when they admitted that the better the study methodology, the worse the results homeopathy got.Dear me - caught lying *again*.
zizzish (August 19, 2008 at 3:41 am)
It's always sad that the people who fall for this sort of quackery are among the most interested in healthy, natural living.Physicians have only been effective at helping their patients for the last 125 yrs or so. But physicians have had lines of patients for thousands of years. There is no convincing people who want to trust quackery. You can only protect those who haven't bought into this yet.Homeopaths and other quacks are evil, hateful people. Or at best helplessly stupid.
mohanaturo (August 19, 2008 at 2:44 am)
James Randi/wizardsleeve/magician you should stick to what you are good at: LYING
mohanaturo (August 19, 2008 at 2:41 am)
Münchener Modell, Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Technische Universität/Ludwig-Maximillans-Universität, München, Germany.This is the conclusion of a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials on Homeopathy at the abovementioned centre:The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo.
wizzardssleeve (August 18, 2008 at 10:05 am)
:DWhat an awesome post from someone who's entire input into this thread has been C&P's from other people.C&P's of "facts" that on examination are totally untrue and you can't support. Such as your assertion that all those analyses stated "homeopathy is not placebo effect". Of course you can't back this up (despite repeatedly being asked to) because none of them do say that. You're a liar.Frankly, given the stunning job you're doing of it, I don't need to try and make homeopathy look bad.
wizzardssleeve (August 18, 2008 at 10:03 am)
....and this has been dealt with too. Surprise surprise, it's also not true.Are you really so desperate for stuff to copy and paste that you're just doing it from random blogs now? This is just embarrassing.
wizzardssleeve (August 18, 2008 at 10:01 am)
No, they didn't. I've already quoted from these meta-analyses, and not one of them says what you claim. Your ceaseless lying is shameless.
mohanaturo (August 17, 2008 at 10:35 pm)
Quite frankly, Randi/wizardsleeve, I'm tired of your spamming threads with quotations trying to make Homeopathy look bad. All I ever see you do is post quotes and links; don't you have anything of your own to say?We might discuss the vices of your pharmaceutical/magical business (god knows there are plenty), but that is not the subject of this thread.I'll just ignore your posts. If you should ever have something to say, of your own, and on topic, I'll read it.
mohanaturo (August 17, 2008 at 10:26 pm)
In 2005 the Lancet tried to destroy homeopathy but were only looking at 8 inconclusive trials out of 110 of which 102 were positive. This was a fraudulent analysis."Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Einstein.
mohanaturo (August 17, 2008 at 10:23 pm)
There have been many clinical trials that prove homeopathy works. In the past 24 years there have been more than 180 controlled, and 118 randomized, trials into homeopathy, which were analysed by four separate meta-analyses. In each case, the researchers concluded that the benefits of homeopathy went far beyond that which could be explained purely by the placebo effect. |
