New sceptical poster here, with just a couple of questions that I hope some expert can answer for me (in plain everyday English) ...

Why is there so much debate about the effectiveness of homeopathy?
Does this indicate that the effectiveness is not strongly evident?
It seems that it should be very easy to design test protocols that provide absolutely strong, clear and unequivocal evidence.

Why do we not see any such evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy, but instead see evidence to the contrary, in reputable medical journals?

statistical science is in its infancy. they have a lot to learn.

http://www.hpathy.com/research/shere...homeopathy.asp

sorry if the article has words in it that are too big for you. the plain fact is that demanding simple language and uncomplicated logic, to explain complications, is typical skeptical foolishness. no offence intended, of course.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

cellsalts, thanks for the anecdotes.

Just clarify unabling to discuss accordingly. Are you also from JERF?

About your above post, pls study following topic and links provided in it;


Considerations about Homeopathy?

Hope this will help to you to understand realities.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

Why would you believe such a strange idea as that?
And who is 'they'?
You aren't one of those 'conspiracy nuts' are you (ha ha)?
If you look carefully you will see that I did not request (nor demand) any such thing as you state.

I read the article at your link thanks.
Please don't be sorry - big words and complex logic pose no problems for me.
Unfortunately it is true that I do not understand the gist of that link due to all the obfuscating terminology and pseudoscientific babble.
Is it really foolish for one to hope for an explanation in everyday English?

ps, no offence taken!

kayveeh, I cannot keep up with the incredible volume of your words!
I have read many of your postings thanks, and I read that link too thanks.

I was just looking for some simple answers to a couple of simple questions.
Short answers using everyday English would be great!

No, I am not 'from JREF', but I have visited that site quite a few times, thanks.

Wow! That IS amazing!
Surely there will be a Nobel Prize awarded soon!

That does not grok.

You ARE joking about the Kirlian electrophotography?


I don't see these countless results. I must be looking in the wrong journals.

That link did not work for me cellsalts, but yes, I have seen Benveniste's work on water memory before and it was beautifully presented.
It was very fortunate for everybody concerned that it was properly investigated and found to be flawed.

quote: Unfortunately it is true that I do not understand the gist of that link due to all the obfuscating terminology and pseudoscientific babble.

nicely put. i believe the gist of your comment comes down to this: "Unfortunately it is true that I do not understand the gist of that link ...."

as for your speculation regarding causation ("...due to..."), i assume you have statistical evidence based on randomized sampling to support your belief that your failure to understand is the fault of the rhetoric rather than the reader?

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Yes, you are right.
And to compound my wrong, I was confused about which link was which.
I was actually compaining about the ofuscation that I saw in kayveehs links.

That link that you posted was clearly written, and nicely describes some of the problems found when designing RCTs for homeopathy.
Thanks for that.

thanks, aunty.

added: though on further experience with your hedging, that should read, "thanks, aunty ... mmm, i tink!?"

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.