Another excellently hilarious quote from a bogus discipline:
“Either homeopathy works or controlled trials don’t!”
—Scottish homeopath David Reilly at the 2001 Harvard Medical School Complementary and Integrative Medicine Conference.
2008-01-04
You know where my sympathies lie...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Of course both could be wrong but I doubt it. I'd put my money on homeopathy though since conventional medicine, being in cahoots with Big Pharma and the FDA, hasn't cured any new diseases in years. I mean, how long has diabetes or epilepsy been around? I'm sure it was mentioned somewhere in the original science textbook, The Bible, but even in 6,000 years of existence man hasn't been able to come up with a way to cure it. At least not a way that can be understood by flawed and closed minded science. And aren't vaccines just homeopathy? Anyway, thanks for visiting my website. I hope you return for more factually challenged news reports.
My other favourite dichotomy currently is:
On evolution:
"Either the theory is wrong, or I'm just incredibly stupid." -Todd Friel on Evolution, from The Way of the Master Radio for 24 Dec.
;)
But I thought those guys already proved evolution wrong with the Banana Argument?
Indeed...;)
Come to think of it, I am not sure that the analogy of homeopathy and vaccination holds: if it did, wouldn't most homeopathic doctors be pro-vaccination, instead of claiming that it is also the tool of Big Pharma (which it undoubtedly, is)?
Homeopathic doctors aren't pro-vaccination? They next thing you'll tell me is that chiropractors treat pediatric asthma. I need to get in touch with my sources on this.
Pediatric or podiatric?
Vaccination and homeopathy are utterly dissimilar, and if this isn't obvious to you, then your understanding of at least one of them is lacking.
Homeopathy is based on a model of reality that is rejected by many scientists based on the idea that what we currently refer to as "science" encompasses all of reality. This idea is itself not scientific, it is a generalization beyond the evidence.
It is difficult to address the homeopathic model with controlled, double-blind trials, in part because the diagnosis is not validly reducible to, for example "cough," "sore throat," or "fever."
UK National Health includes homeopathy, and if ethical issues could be addressed, presumably homeopathic medications could be replaced with neutral substances for the purpose of comparison.
Lest we get too puritannical about the scientific "truth" here, let's consider whether, assuming homeopathy works exclusively by placebo effect, discontinuation of these treatments would increase or decrease costs. That is, if the effect is entirely placebo, and we remove that effect, wouldn't we then have to medicate with something else? Which, I'd bet, would be more expensive than the homeopathy.
The quest for certainty never ends happily.
-F.
Humour, comrade, humour, or at least a weak attempt at it. Naturally I am well aware of the differences between vaccination and homeopathy: one works, the other is a pile of shite shown to be ineffectual by many studies (guess which is which?)
Some homeopathic treatments are quite expensive, though. Funnily, the less active ingredient a concoction has, the more expensive it is. good water is hard to find,
AFA double-blinds: difficult, may be but not impossible, as study after study demonstrates.
Post a Comment