Quote:
Originally Posted by Similibus
1. Look again - they refer to the 1831 cholera epidemic and the 1918 'flu epidemic. The aggregate statistical results for cholera treatment in Europe and America show that allopathic hospitals had a mortality rate of 40%, compared to 4% in homeopathic hospitals.
For the 1918 'flu - allopathic hospitals had a mortality rate of 30%, compared to <1% in homeopathic hospitals.
|
These are 177 and 90 years old, respectively. To suggest that this is a valid comparison when talking about modern medicine is stupid. Show me studies today comparing conventional heart disease treatment and homeopathic treatment that shows how effective homeopathic treatment is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Similibus
2. RDBPCT's can never be a true measure of homeopathy's efficay. They are designed to show the effect of pharmaceutical medicines.
|
[/quote]
How exactly do they favor traditional medicine? In my eyes an RDBPCT is the only way you can truly measure the effects of a medicine. This is an interesting article discussing the reasons why any other method of proof is unacceptable:
Double-Blind Studies
I may join that discussion, though it's slightly more long winded than I prefer. Thanks for the link.