The following list is the complete collection of scientifically controlled, double-blind studies which have conclusively demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy.
Categories
Medicine
Publications
Reference
Archives
Tags
#QEDcon abuse atheism belief blasphemy catholic child abuse christopher hitchens Creationism death debate education Egypt essay evolution Facebook fraud gay gay rights homeopathy human rights Humor islam James Randi JREF kooks mars NASA news nobel prize nutters Pakistan peer review pope PZ PZ Myers religion richard dawkins satire scam science skeptics space superstition UK
By the end of year 2010, there have been 245 human studies published in 100 peer-reviewed international medical journals (81 integrative, 9 homeopathy and 10 CAM) including 12 meta-analysis, 6 systematic reviews, 1 Cochrane Review and 104 DBRPCT in evidence of homeopathy.
[Translate]
Well, let’s see a list of them then.
[Translate]
Nancy, if you mean homeopathy works by “in evidence of”, that’s a false statement. Cochrane has reviewed evidence for homeopathy for ADHD, asthma, dementia, osteoarthritis, hot flushes, cancer side effects, induction of labor, and bed wetting (see links from http://www.cochrane.org/search/site/homeopathy). None found evidence that homeopathy works. Important to note, “most studies used poor sampling and measurement techniques, few subjects, single sites and no replication”. That’s exactly contrary to your list of big numbers to convince people good research is being done. Particularly damning: “The probability of a positive outcome was significantly lower when randomization and placebo were used than when another method of group assignment or comparison to conventional therapy was used.” These quotes are from scientifically-minded homeopathy boosters (Wayne Jonas et al), not critics (who could say much worse and still be correct). http://www.imbi.uni-freiburg.de/OJS/cca/index.php?journal=cca&page=article&op=view&path=4361
[Translate]
Don’t mind Nancy, she’s a woo doctor or something. Runs a pro-homeopathy website that claims its “science based”. Sorry Nancy, but it’s not. Using fancy words does not equal science. I will not directly link to her website here, but if you google “245 human studies published in 100 peer-reviewed international medical journals (81 integrative, 9 homeopathy and 10 CAM) including 12 meta-analysis” and it will pop up.
[Translate]
This reddit comment ought to be linked here. Take a look Nancy: http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/xi2y6/list_of_scientifically_controlled_double_blind/c5mo44q
[Translate]
List of Journals and URL Links to 245 studies in them including 132 FULL TEXT papers are available as compendium at http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/scientific-research-in-homeopathy . The compendium is prepared by mining 6 online databases: PubMed Central (National Library of medicine, USA), MedWorm, British library Direct (type homeopathy in search box), Scirus, Google Scholar and HomBRex
[Translate]
Nancy, please, stop. Why not perform your own experiments. Take a heavily diluted (say 30c) strong poison and drink it. If you come back and post here, you’ve proven yourself wrong. If you don’t….
[Translate]
@J
Cochrane Review: Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments (2010) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004845.pub2/full
[Translate]
Reddit: “These so-called “positive” studies used treatments that I would not classify as homeopathic. For example, in one cancer side effect trial, they used calendula oil to treat dermatitis. In another study, they examined nasal lavage with saline solution – this is a procedure, not the result of a opposite same-effect substance heavily diluted in water ingested as a drug.”
[Translate]
Matt, I think you need to understand homeopathy. You need to know what constitutes homeopathy and what is not.
http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/homeopathy-explained/
[Translate]